(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Annual report"

*l* 







San Francisco Public Library 

Government Information Center 
San Francisco Public Library 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 










c% 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

1990-1991 FISCAL YEAR 



AMMUJAL EIEIPOET 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

■ 



Jeff Brown 
Public Defender 

Peter G. Keane 
Chief Attorney 



3 1223 06446 4200 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

Acknowledgment is due to Ramin Naderi, a recent graduate of 
Golden Gate University School of Law, who was responsible for 
the organization, editing, and re-write of this Annual Report and 
donated countless hours to this exacting chore. 



2 50351 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
45 SFPL 04/09/04 48 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ANNUAL REPORT - VOLUME 1 

INTRODUCTION TO THE 1990-91 ANNUAL REPORT 1 

I. PUBLIC DEFENDER'S MISSION 2 

II. OFFICE JURISDICTION 3 

III. OFFICE STRUCTURE 4 

IV. OFFICE STAFF 5 

V. BUDGET AND PROGRAM COSTS 6 

BUDGET 6 

PROGRAM COSTS 7 

VI. DEPARTMENTAL UNITS 8 

A) FELONY UNIT 8 

B) MISDEMEANOR UNIT 15 

C) JUVENILE UNIT 18 

D) MENTAL HEALTH UNIT 23 

E) INVESTIGATIVE UNIT 27 

F) RESEARCH UNIT 2 8 

G) ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT 30 

VII. TRAINING 31 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



INTRODUCTION TO THE 1990-1991 ANNUAL REPORT 

The Annual Report is a comprehensive description of the work of the San Francisco Public 
Defender's Office. The 1990-91 Annual Report is presented in two volumes: 

Volume 1 is a statement of the office's jurisdiction, mission and programs, as well as a 
record of its budget and program costs. Tables and graphs have been utilized to illustrate the 
statistical trends in the caseload of the office and the court system over the last decade. 

Volume 2 consists of a series of articles which address and analyze current issues which are 
of critical importance to the Public Defender and other professionals in the criminal justice system. 

The Public Defender's Office represents people charged with crimes who lack the funds to 
hire private attorneys. Twenty thousand such people are represented each year. To carry out this 
enormous task and responsibility, the office has a staff of seventy one lawyers and thirty seven 
support personnel. 

Throughout this detailed report, we hope the reader keeps in mind the principal concern of 
this office of city government: that every client receive the highest quality of representation. Thus, 
the task, indeed the duty, of every employee, whether department head or telephone operator, is to 
ask this question: "Is there anything more, within reason, we could do for the clients who use our 
services?" 

The San Francisco Public Defender is one of the few elected Public Defenders in the country. 
As an elected official, the Public Defender is accountable to the public in terms of the quality of his 
administration. This Annual Report is presented to the public pursuant to that responsibility. 



Page 1 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

I. PUBLIC DEFENDER'S MISSION 

The Public Defender's primary duty and loyalty is owed to the client. He has the 
responsibility to ensure that each and every client is fully and competently represented by the deputy 
public defenders. This requires that each client be provided with a defense that works to his/her 
maximum legal advantage, regardless of the gravity of the charges or the weight of the evidence. It 
also demands the highest professional and ethical conduct on the part of each member of the office. 

In safeguarding the constitutional rights of the client, the Public Defender faces and grapples 
with the state of the budget. He must develop the office budget and lobby the Mayor and the Board 
of Supervisors in order to have the budget approved. Thereafter, the Public Defender must manage 
the office's program costs in order to ensure that the delivery of legal services is as economical as 
possible without sacrificing the quality of those services. 

As an elected official, the Public Defender must also educate the public at large about the 
function of the defense attorney in the criminal justice system. A large amount of the Public 
Defender's time is spent answering inquiries about critical issues which are subjects of passionate 
debate. The Public Defender must have the courage to enter such debates and provide an informed 
view, no matter how unpopular that view may be. 

Thus, the Public Defender has a duty to be more than a passive player within the system. He 
must articulate his concerns about the overall quality of justice in the criminal justice system, and he 
has the responsibility to speak up when injustices occur. As such, the Public Defender is the leader 
of public opinion, and he must constantly strive to maintain public respect for the office and the 
criminal justice system. 



Page 2 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

II. OFFICE JURISDICTION 

The Public Defender's Office is created by the Charter of the City and County of San 
Francisco. Section 33 of the Charter provides that the Public Defender shall represent persons 
charged with criminal offenses who lack the funds to hire private attorneys. 

In addition to this specific grant of power by the Charter, Section 27706 of the California 
Government Code authorizes California counties to establish Public Defender Offices. The 
Government Code sets forth the types of cases which can be handled by a County Public Defender. 
They are as follows: 

1 ) Criminal cases upon request of the defendant or appointment by the court. 

2) Contempt cases. 

3) Appeals. 

4) Actions for the collection of wages or other demands against a person for under $100. 

5) Defense of individuals in civil litigation where a person is being harassed or 
persecuted. 

6) Cases involving mental health guardianships and conservatorships. 

7) Juvenile cases. 

The jurisdiction of the office is further defined by the California Welfare and Institutions 
Code. Sections 634 and 317 provide for the appointment of deputy public defenders when the 
parental custody rights of indigent parents are being subjected to suspension or termination 
proceedings. 



Page 3 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

DI. OFFICE STRUCTURE 

The Public Defender is the Executive Officer of the Public Defender's Office. The Public 
Defender is elected every four years and appoints all deputy public defenders. These employees 
serve at the pleasure of the Public Defender. The balance of the staff-investigators, secretaries and 
other support personnel-are selected through the Civil Service rules. 

The Chief Attorney is the second Executive Officer of the department. The Chief Attorney is 
the person to whom all unit supervisors report. The Chief Attorney is the Acting Public Defender 
should the Public Defender leave the state. 

In any given year, the office represents over 20,000 people. In order to provide competent 
representation to this large group of clients, 71 attorneys and 37 support personnel are assigned to 
seven units within the office. The following illustrates the Public Defender's Office Structure: 

1) Felony Unit: 36 attorneys in both the Municipal and Superior Courts. 

2) Misdemeanor Unit : 17 attorneys in 7 Municipal Courts. 

3) Juvenile Unit: 10 attorneys, 1 investigator, 3 social workers, 

3 clerical-secretarial personnel. 

4) Mental Health Unit: 3 attorneys, 2 investigators. 

5) Investigative Unit: 1 principal attorney as supervisor, 10 investigators, 

3 clerks. 

6) Research Unit: 2 attorneys and 1 paralegal. 

7) Administrative Unit: 1 executive assistant, 1 accounts coordinator, 

15 clerical personnel. 



Page 4 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

IV. OFFICE STAFF 

Attorney Diversity: 

The Public Defender's Office represents a great number of individuals from various ethnic 
and minority backgrounds. The presence of attorneys from similar ethnic, social and economic 
backgrounds strengthens the attorney-client relationship by developing a higher level of trust. 
Furthermore, such presence is a statement of the office's strong commitment to equal opportunity. 

The San Francisco Public Defender takes pride in the quality and diversity of the seventy one 
deputy public defenders employed at the office. At the present time, 41.8% of the attorneys are of 
minority ethnic groups and 46.3% are women. Additionally, the office has a substantial presence 
of Gay and Lesbian attorneys. 
Volunteer Attorneys: 

For over a decade, the office has benefited from the volunteer participation of such law firms 
as Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro and Morrison and Foerster. Recently, the volunteer staff has been 
joined by members of the law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White &McAuliffe. For stints up to six 
months, an attorney from these prestigious firms works at the Public Defender's Office handling 
misdemeanor and felony cases. In fiscal year 90-91, six attorneys volunteered their services at the 
office. The outstanding quality of work performed by these attorneys surely reflects the excellence 
and public spirit of their firms and themselves individually. 

The Public Defender's Office owes a great vote of thanks to these fine lawyers and would 
like to acknowledge each of the attorneys and their firms: 

Nancy Cox Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Kim Zeldin Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Suzanne Janissen Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Sergio Garcia-Rodriguez Heller, Ehrman, et al 

Tim Foley Solo Practitioner 

Claudia Dickman Solo Practitioner 

Page 5 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

V. BUDGET AND PROGRAM COSTS 

Budget: 

The following graph illustrates the Public Defender's Office Budgets since fiscal year 
1987-88. The approved budget for the 1991-92 fiscal year has also been included. As indicated, 
the office budget has decreased- from the previous year's budget-twice in the last five years. 



Public Defender's Budgets Since FY 87-88 



91-92 



90-91 




t — ' — ' — i — ■ — ' — i — ■ — « — i — ' — ' — r 
2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 

Budget in Dollars 



Page 6 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Program Costs: 

The following table illustrates the program costs of the office for fiscal year 90-91. The costs 
are represented by the salary and fringe costs of the personnel; the operational costs of the office are 
not included. 



Administration, Support, and Clerical $1,021,113 

Felony Representation $2,757,285 

Misdemeanor Representation $1,407,411 

Mental Health $456,780 

Juvenile $1,147,307 

Juvenile Delinquency $796,894 

Juvenile Dependency $350,413 

Research $264,780 

Investigation $853.973 

TOTAL: $7,908,649 



Page 7 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

VI. DEPARTMENTAL UNITS 

A) FELONY UNIT: 
Procedural Background: 

After an arrest, the District Attorney may file a criminal complaint in the Municipal Court. 
Once the defendant appears on the complaint, the court will appoint the Public Defender to the case 
if the client is indigent. If there is a conflict of interest, however, the court will appoint a private 
attorney. 

There are several possible dispositions of felony cases in the Municipal Court. A client may 
plead guilty to a felony or misdemeanor charge, the case may be dismissed or the client may be 
required to participate in a drug diversion program. 

If a preliminary hearing is held, however, and the court determines that there is enough 
evidence to hold the defendant for trial, the case will be transferred to the Superior Court and placed 
on the trial calendar after a plea of not guilty. The case will then end up in a negotiated plea, some 
other disposition or a jury trial. 
Jury Trial: 

The jury trial represents the most fundamental protection in our system of laws against unjust 
punishment. The jury trial prevents oppressive and arbitrary state action by requiring the 
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 

During fiscal year 90-91 , the Felony Unit handled a total of 69 felony trials which resulted in 
45 Findings of Guilty, 17 Findings of Not Guilty and 7 Mistrials. 
Motions to Revoke Probation: 

In the last few years, a major part of the felony unit's workload has been representing clients 
in "Motions to Revoke Probation." These motions arise against individuals who have been 
previously sentenced and placed on probation. If they break the law or fail to comply with some 
condition of their probation, the District Attorney's Office or the Probation Department can bring a 

Page 8 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

motion to revoke probation on the basis of the new charge or violation. 

Until 1987, these motions represented a distinct minority of cases in the Superior Court. 
They have become, however, the majority of the unadjudicated cases in the Superior Court. In 
90-91, the felony unit handled 2045 motions to revoke in the Superior Court. This increase is due 
to the fact that the District Attorney can secure the client's imprisonment without a preliminary 
hearing and a jury trial. 

Fiscal Year Comparisons: Statistical Data and Trends 

Figure A(l) illustrates the felony unit's caseload since fiscal year 86-87: 
Figure A(l): Public Defender Felony Caseload 

86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 



Superior Court 
Municipal Court 
Sub-total 


1,576 
4,977 
6,553 


2,114 
5,660 
7,774 


5,345 
5,634 
10,979 


4,654 
5,447 
10,101 


4,481 
5,077 
9,558 


Less cases held to 
answer or certified 


1,388 


2,041 


4,277 


3,167 


2,858 


TOTAL: 


5,165 


5,733 


6,702 


6,934 


6,700 



Figure A(2) is a detailed breakdown of Figure A(l) with respect to fiscal years 89-90 and 

90-91: 

Figure A(2): Felony Cases in the Public Defender's Office 

Municipal Court Cases 89-90 90-91 

Cases set for preliminary hearing 5,294 4,953 

Fugitives 153 124 

TOTAL: 5,447 5,077 

Superior Court Cases 

Cases held to answer in Muni. Court 1,291 1,092 

Cases where there has been a certified 

plea 1,776 1,766 

Felony motions to revoke 1,587 1,623 

TOTAL: 4,654 4,481 

Page 9 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Figure A(3) is a comparative breakdown of Public Defender felony cases with respect to the 
number of arraignements, cases held to answer and certified pleas since fiscal year 82-83. 

In fiscal year 90-91, there were 5077 arraignments, 1092 cases held to answer and 1766 
certified pleas. 



Figure A(3): New Public Defender Cases 



00 




Arraigned 
Held to Answer 
Certified Pleas 



CO 
CO 



00 



in 
oo 



CD 

oo 



00 



00 
00 



00 



o 



Figure A(4) illustrates the average number of Public Defender trial cases pending in the 
Superior Court. 



TO 

c 



Figure A(4): Average # of Public Defender 
Trial Cases Pending in Superior Court 




Page 10 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure A(5) indicates the total number of felony cases-Public Defender and non-Public 
Defender cases-in the Municipal and Superior Courts since fiscal year 86-87: 

Figure A(5): All Felony Cases-Municipal and Superior Courts 

86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 



Arraignments- 
Muni. Court* 


7,166 


8,806 


7,670 


7,042 


6,480 


Informations- 
Sup. Court** 


N/A 


1,772 


1,812 


1,907 


1,546 


Certified Pleas 
Sup. Court** 


1,929 


2,491 


3,508 


2,875 


2,639 


Certified Pleas- 
Muni. Court* 


1,929 


2,564 


3,449 


2,806 


2,906 



* (Source: Municipal Court Judicial Council Statistics) 
**(Source: Clerk, Superior Court) 



Page 11 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure A(6) shows the number of arrests for Opiates in San Francisco by the San Francisco 
Police Department. Although cocaine is not an opiate, it is prosecuted under the same code sections 
of the California Health and Safety Code as is heroin. Therefore, the number of arrests for cocaine 
have been included in Figure A(6). 

The increase in the number of arrests during fiscal year 87-88 was due to the Police 
Department's "War on Drugs" policy. This policy had an enormous impact on the workload of all 
criminal justice system agencies. 



Figure A(6): Number of Arrests for Opiates 



10000 

« 9000 
n 

CO 

I 8000 - 

o 700 
6000 - 
5000 " 
4000 



y\ 



-88 


-68 


-06- 




CO 


CO 
CO 


<y> 
co 


o 



(Source: San Francisco Police Department.) 



Page 12 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figures A(7) shows the number of persons received at state prisons from San Francisco: 



Figure A(7): Number of Commitments to 
State Prison-San Francisco Courts 




oo-^con^mcDr^oooo 

r^OOCOOOCOGOGOCOCOOOCOO) 



(Source: California Department of Corrections.) 

Figure A(8) clearly indicates the upward trend in the number of statewide commitments to 

state prisons. 

Figure A(8): Number of Commitments to 
State Prison-Statewide 



«) 50000 - 




o>o*-c\jco^*tr><of^coa>o 
r^aoaoooaoaooococoooooo) 



(Source: California Department of Corrections.) 



Page 13 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Figure A(9) shows the number of state prison cases in San Francisco and California between 
1979 and 1990. 

It must be noted that there are statistical differences between the data used in Figures A(7) 
and A(8) and those used in Figure (9). These differences reflect a different selection criterion and 
counting methods. However, the three figures evidence similar trends. 

Figure A(9): Cases Where There is a State Prison Commitment 



Year 


San Francisco 


% of Total 
Sentences 


California 


% of Total 
Sentences 


1979 


517 


29.3 


8,878 


25.3 


1980 


467 


23.3 


10,311 


26.5 


1981 


795 


31.7 


13,971 


30.4 


1982 


759 


33.7 


25,122 


32.5 


1983 


756 


31.5 


16,677 


34.7 


1984 


841 


33.2 


18,094 


34.6 


1985 


938 


34.7 


21,421 


33.7 


1986 


858 


31.4 


24,210 


34.6 


1987 


883 


29.9 


25,029 


34.5 


1988 


921 


22.2 


25,887 


33.2 


1989 


1,180 


26.2 


29,089 


33.5 


1990 


1,239 


32.5 


32,265 


35.1 



(Source: Adult Felony Dispositions - Department of Justice.) 



Page 14 



Office of the Public Defender - Annua! Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 
B) MISDEMEANOR UNIT: 

The representation of misdemeanor cases-those cases which carry a penalty of a year or less 
in the county jail--is conducted in six trial departments and one law and motion department of the 
Municipal Court. 

The misdemeanor unit deals with a wide variety of offenses ranging from public intoxication 
to burglary and aggravated assault. The largest single category of misdemeanor cases, however, is 
driving under the influence of alcohol. 

Misdemeanor cases are disposed of by pleas of guilty, dismissals, verdicts after trial and 
diversion. Diversion involves a referral of the case to the probation department or a diversion 
program, without a plea, on the condition that the defendant comply with certain requirements over 
a period of time. If the requirements are met and there are no subsequent charges, the initial charges 
will be dismissed. 
Fiscal Year Comparisons: Statistical Data and Trends 

Figure B(l) indicates the number of new Public Defender misdemeanor cases since fiscal 
year 84-85. 

Figure B(2) shows the total number of misdemeanor cases-Public Defender and non-Public 
Defender cases-in the municipal Court since fiscal year 84-85. The graph is drawn from the court's 
own records. 

As the two figures illustrate, the upward trend in the number of Public Defender cases is 
consistent with the trend in the total number of cases in the Municipal Court. 



Page 15 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure B(1): New Public Defender Misdemeanor Cases 




00 



IT) 
00 



CD 
CD 



00 



00 
00 



00 



O 



Figure B(2): All New Misdemeanors 



20000 - 



to 

0) 

w 

(0 

o 



XI 

•E 

3 



10000 




in 

00 


CD 
00 


00 


00 
00 


00 


o 

O) 




00 


in 

00 


CD 
00 


00 


CO 

00 


CO 


o 



(Source: Judicial Council Reports.) 



Page 16 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Figure B(3) breaks down the Misdemeanor Unit's caseload during fiscal year 90-91: 

Figure B(3): Public Defender Misdemeanor Caseload 

New Misdemeanor Cases 9,377 

Motions to Revoke 472 

TOTAL: 9,849 

Figure B(4) indicates the disposition of Public Defender misdemeanor cases during fiscal 
year 90-91. 

Figure B(4): Disposition of Public Defender Misdemeanor Cases 

Pled Guilty 7,518 

Acquittals and Dismissals 2,310 

Diversion Dismissals and Referrals 1,302 

The jury trial also plays a crucial role in the disposition of misdemeanor cases. During fiscal 
year 90-91, the misdemeanor unit handled 101 jury trials which resulted in 75 Findings of Guilty, 
17 Findings of Not Guilty and 9 Mistrials. 



Page 17 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 
C) JUVENILE UNIT: 

The Public Defender's Office represents juvenile clients in the juvenile court at the Youth 
Guidance Center. Representation of juveniles involves defending them against charges which 
would constitute crimes if committed by adults. Juveniles can also be charged with non-criminal 
behavior such as truancy and ungovernability. In such cases, the deputy public defenders represent 
the minors in "status offense" proceedings which are brought pursuant to Section 601 of the 
Welfare and Institutions Code. 

With the exception of a two year gap between 8/88 to 8/90, the unit has also been involved in 
the representation of indigent parents of juveniles in dependency cases. These proceedings are 
initiated by the Department of Social Services to suspend or terminate the parents' custody rights 
over their children. (The two year gap was due to the loss of three positions from the 88-89 fiscal 
year budget. The situation was remedied when the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors placed 
additional money in the budget on 8/4/90.) 

Representation of juveniles is a delicate and complex matter. Juvenile court proceedings are 
adversarial proceedings which require the utmost from unit attorneys. The attorneys must not only 
use their talents to present factual and legal defenses for their young clients, but they should also be 
sensitive to the special problems facing the youthful offenders. Thus, unit attorneys must be able to 
identify emotional and educational difficulties of their clients in order to explore alternative forms of 
treatment outside the legal system. In doing so, it is imperative that they fully utilize all of the 
community-based agencies which provide social or psychiatric assistance. 



Page 18 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 
Fiscal Year Comparisons: Statistical Data and Trends 

The following tables and graphs indicate the statistical changes and trends in the juvenile 
justice system: 

Figure C(l): Public Defender Juvenile Caseload Since FY 78-79 

Year Section 601 Section 602 Section 707 Section 300 Total 

78-79 
79-80 
80-81 
81-82 
82-83 
83-84 
84-85 
85-86 
86-87 
87-88 
88-89 
89-90 
90-91 



127 


2,119 


N/A 


225 


2,471 


141 


1,410 


19 


325 


1,895 


145 


2,118 


15 


197 


2,475 


130 


2,470 


12 


202 


2,814 


89 


2,217 


8 


320 


2,634 


30 


2,181 





N/A 


2,211 


66 


1,944 


5 


522 


2,537 


N/A 


1,927 


2 


869 


2,798 


N/A 


2,054 


1 


825 


2,880 


N/A 


2,501 


2 


806 


3,309 


N/A 


2,415 


4 


N/A 


2,419 


16 


2,130 


11 


N/A 


2,157 


14 


1,330 


5 


358* 


1,707 



' Note : In FY 90-91, dependency representation by the Public Defender's Office 

did not commence until 8/90. Thus, Figure C(l) reflects the number of 
these Section 300 cases for only 3 quarters of the fiscal year. 



Page 19 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Figures C(2) and C(3) indicate the trend in the number of commitments to the California 
Youth Authority and the Log Cabin. 



Figure C(2): Commitments to CYA-Public Defender Cases 




-| — I—) — r— | — r— | — i— | — I | i | i | — i— | — i— | — I | i | 

a>OT-c\joo"<frm<or^coo>o-»- 
f--cocococococococococooo> 

r-^f^-cococooooococooocoooo 



Figure C(3): Commitments to Log Cabin- 
Public Defender Cases 




i ■ i ■ i • i • i ' i ' i • i ■ i ■ i 



0'-c\jcO'<frmtor^coCT>0'- 

COCOCOCOOOGOCOGOCOCOOO) 






cooococoaocococooocoo) 



Although the CYA is often cited as a model facility, it has a recidivism rate of 65%. This 
occurs despite the best efforts of top correctional personnel including social workers and 

Page 20 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

psychologists. 

The San Francisco Probation Department has reported that the number of commitments by 
the juvenile court to the California Youth Authority has fallen to a ten year low. Although law and 
order advocates may view this with alarm, many other professionals in the system consider this 
trend as a preferred use of community-based alternatives by the court. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's Office has a social worker who has been instrumental 
in reducing the incarceration of our youthful clients in both the Log Cabin and the CYA. In fiscal 
year 90-91 , 9 juvenile clients were commited to the CYA and 51 were sent to the Log Cabin. 

Figure C(4) illustrates the Active Juvenile Probation Caseload since 1972. As indicated, the 
caseload in the 1970's was much higher than the number of cases in recent years. In 1974, for 
instance, there were 2,004 active probation cases, whereas there were only 1,312 cases in 1989. 
(The data for 1990 is not available at this time.) 



Figure C(4): Active Juvenile Probation 



2200 



» 2000 1 


CO 

<3 1800 - 



I 1600 - 

< 

•3 1400- 



1200 - 



1000 




1970 



1990 



(Source: Department of Justice.) 



Page 21 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Figure C(5) shows the total number of juvenile court filings since fiscal year 78-79: 
Figure C(5): Juvenile Court Filings 



Year 


Total 


Original 


Subsequent 


Contested 


Sec. 601 




Filings 


Filings 


Filings 


Matters 


Matters 


78-79 


2,120 


1,467 


653 


516 


93 


79-80 


2,116 


1,426 


690 


621 


132 


80-81 


1,933 


1,178 


755 


556 


119 


81-82 


2,295 


1,388 


907 


530 


87 


82-83 


2,356 


1,128 


1,030 


305 


49 


83-84 


2,158 


1,278 


1,078 


270 


71 


84-85 


1,982 


1,533 


449 


235 


19 


85-86 


1,981 


1,618 


363 


221 


16 


86-87 


1,730 


998 


732 


262 


34 


87-88 


2,032 


988 


1,144 


209 


148 


88-89 


2,132 


1,026 


1,306 


113 


68 


89-90 


2,205 


1,007 


1,198 


211 


7 


90-91 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 



(Source: Judicial Council Reports) 



Page 22 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 
D) MENTAL HEALTH UNIT: 

The attorneys at the Mental Health Unit are the principal attorneys for the mentally ill 
population of our community. Most of the unit's work involves representation of clients in 
conservatorship petitions. Under Section 5500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, this petition is 
used to establish judicial control over a client who is alleged to be a danger to himself or others, or 
is gravely disabled to the extent that he lacks the ability to provide the basic necessities of life for 
himself. 

In these cases, the client may be placed in a state hospital or a local facility if the petition is 
granted. Thus, the attorneys must review the medical reports and other evidence in order to explore 
better suited alternatives for the client. 

The unit is also involved in the representation of mentally ill clients who have already been 
placed at a state hospital pursuant to the provisions of the Penal Code and the W & I Code. These 
clients must be regularly visited and interviewed so that their progress and status could be examined 
and updated. For instance, if the state hospital makes an inappropriate recommendation for a client, 
the attorney in charge of the case must bring that fact to the attention of the court, and if it becomes 
necessary, a jury trial may be required to determine whether the client should remain at the hospital. 

In the 90-91 fiscal year, the unit was also involved in four other types of medical hearings. 
They are as follows: 

1) Probate Code Section 3200: Hearings under this code involve ex parte orders for 
invasive medical procedures with respect to hospital patients who are critically ill and temporarily 
incompetent due to severe illness. These patients have no family or fiduciary capable of giving 
consent, but they are in such imminently life threatening conditions that procedures can be initiated 
on emergency basis. This determination is made on the basis of mental competence and medical 
necessity. When there is doubt, a second opinion is usually requested from both a psychiatrist and 
a medical specialist in the relative field. The unit considers these requests to be urgent. They are 

Page 23 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

usually acted upon within 48 hours. 

2) Medical Consent Hearings: By case law, conservatees have a right to refuse invasive 
medical treatment. In cases where invasive treatment is needed and the conservatee is allegedly 
incompetent, the court must make a determination, based on mental competence as well as medical 
necessity, whether the conservator may be authorized to consent to the treatment. These are priority 
requests and are usually resolved on the first available court date. The conservatee is usually seen 
within 48 hours of the request. 

3) Riese Hearings: In 1989, the California Supreme Court decision in Riese v. St. Mary's 
Hospital went into effect. This decision required a determination of competence on the right to 
refuse psychotropic medication. The only issue to be determined in this area is the individual's 
mental competence to make the decision, not the propriety of the treatment. 

4) Routine Medical Determinations: Effective January, 1991, the legislature mandated that 
all orders appointing a conservator pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short include a finding as to 
whether the conservatee is capable of giving consent to routine, non-invasive medical treatment 
and/or examinations, a subject not previously covered by the act. The district attorney made no 
attempt to enforce this order until May, 1991. Subsequently, the unit has reviewed the medical 
records of all clients, and the attorneys have been successful in preserving the rights of the clients to 
consent to medical treatment in 87% of the cases. The unit has insisted that when a request to deny 
this right to a client is made, the need for such a request must be adequately documented. If there is 
any doubt, the matter is brought to hearing so that a determination of competence can be judicially 
made. 



Page 24 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



The following table indicates the work of the Mental Health Unit for fiscal year 90-91: 



Figure D(l): Caseload-Mental Health Unit 

14 DAY CERTIFICATION 1593 

Medication review hearings (Riese) 152 

Found incompetent 63 

Found competent 16 

Petition withdrawn 47 

No Probable Cause 24 

Compromised 2 

Writs of Habeas Corpus 202 

Granted 23 

Denied 63 

Withdrawn 116 

New Conservatorships 613 

Granted 211 

Denied 402 

Total Appearances 7 1 1 

Conservatorship Renewals 602 

Granted 481 

Denied 121 

Total Appearances 761 

Terminations 76 

Rehearings 75 

Released 18 

Held 37 

Withdrawn 20 

Medical Consents 53 

Granted 49 

Denied 4 

Total Appearances 86 

Routine Medical Determinations 107 

Electroshock Hearings 4 

Granted 2 

Denied 2 

Progress and Placement Reports 156 

Change Conservator Hearings 11 

Page 25 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Placement Hearings 19 

Placement change ordered 13 

Placement remained 6 

Probate Code 3200 Cases .' 24 



TOTAL CIVIL CASES - -- 3687 

Penal Code 1026.5 22 

Granted 21 

Denied 1 

Penal Code 1026.2 (E) 16 

Granted 3 

Denied 

Withdrawn 13 

Pending 3 

Penal Code 1600 Hearings 29 

Hospital Privileges Hearings 19 

TOTAL CRIMINAL HEARINGS 78 



Page 26 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

E) INVESTIGATIVE UNIT: 

Solid investigation is absolutely essential to effective representation. It can literally win the 
case by discovering facts that contradict the prosecutor's case, or by providing evidence which 
prove the innocence of the client. 

The investigative process begins when an attorney makes a written request to the unit. An 
investigator may be asked to locate and interview witnesses, locate documents and photograph 
crime scenes. To ensure timely and effective investigation, a suspense date is set for the completion 
of the investigation, and the entire investigation is conducted by the same investigator. 

In fiscal year 90-91, the investigative unit conducted the following work for the felony and 
misdemeanor units: 

Figure E(l): Workload-Investigative Unit 

Felony Unit 

Investigation Requests 587 

Investigation Interviews 1,745 

Subpoenas 735 

Misdemeanor Unit 

Investigation Requests 329 

Investigation Interviews 635 

Subpoenas 323 



Page 27 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



F) RESEARCH UNIT 

The Research Unit is located on the second floor and encompasses the Computer Room and 
the Library, as well as two offices for personnel.. The physical plant contains six computers, five 
printers, one scanner, and telecommunications equipment. The computers are used by the unit 
personnel as well as the attorneys and their interns. They contain electronic copies of the office's 
entire forms library and recent case summaries. 

The library contains several hundred state and federal law practice and case books, a 
microfiche reader-printer, and a copy machine, as well as a Briefs and Documents Bank containing 
several hundred documents with a computerized indexing system for access. Three computers have 
access to the Westlaw computerized research databank and the California Public Defenders 
Association C.L.A.R.A. system. 

In fiscal year 1990-91, Unit personnel: 

— Prepared writs, motions, memos and other documents in response to 200 formal requests. 

— Answered over 1 ,500 oral requests for information. 

-- Briefed and argued one case resulting in a published opinion, Love v. Superior Court 
(1990) 226 Cal. App.3d 736. 

— Organized and conducted seminars on new criminal statutes, misdemeanor pretrial 
motions, and evidence, for a total of 7 hours of criminal law specialization credit. 

— Co-edited a Misdemeanor Courtroom Manual. 

— Continued to prepare and publish the Office's monthly newsletter, which contains 
summaries of recent cases and other information of interest. 

— Updated and maintained the Briefs and Documents Bank and the Forms collection. 

— Issued more than thirty memos on current legal issues. 



Page 28 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



The burden on the Unit and the Office's trial deputies increased this year with the passage of 
Proposition 1 15, which is just now being interpreted by the California Supreme Court. Areas such 
as preliminary hearings, indictments, and prosecutorial discovery have been thrown into confusion, 
and cases that have stood as firm authorities for decades are now in doubt. The passage of this 
proposition, and Proposition 8 before it, which is still not fully interpreted, have made the Unit 
more valuable than ever to the trial deputies in the Office. 



Page 29 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 
G) ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT: 

The Administrative Unit is managed by the Executive Assistant. The unit consists of 
Reception Area Personnel, Accountants, Legal Process Clerks, Senior Legal Process Clerks and 
Word Processing Secretaries and Clerk Typists. 

The work of these support personnel is critical to the operation of the Public Defender's 
Office. Without them, the deputy public defenders could not function. Furthermore, the 
Administrative Unit is a major link of the office to the public at large. Thus, the unit plays a critical 
role in the office's public relations. When phone calls are properly answered and the public is 
treated with courtesy, the office is viewed as a resource as opposed to just another bureaucracy. 
Public respect for the office generates good morale and good morale equals high performance— an 
equation that yields a net positive to the City and County and the Public Defender's Office. 



Page 30 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Vn. TRAINING 

Training is an essential part of any respectable Public Defender's Office. It is the means by 
which basic information about the work and the law is conveyed to new attorneys and other staff 
members. The continuous and rapid developments in law and forensics virtually make it impossible 
for the individual practitioner to keep apace by himself or herself. Thus, training is imperative for 
the continuing education of the staff. 

An an integral part of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, training takes on three 
different modalities: 

1) On-the -Job Training: This type of training is designed to break the attorneys or other 
staff members into the tasks they will be performing. This process entails instructions, feedback 
and informal evaluations. The trainees are encouraged to utilize the training and resource materials 
available at the office. 

2) In-House Training: The In-House model involves educational sessions provided by the 
office. These sessions cover such areas as recent developments in the law and forensics. The 
office also provides simulated courtroom presentations as part of In-House training. 

3) Out-of-Office Training: This model consists of seminars set up by professional 
associations. The seminars are conducted throughout the state, and some of these associations 
provide scholarships to attending attorneys. 



Page 31 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



In 90-91, the office provided and/or participated in the following formal training sessions: 



Office-Wide Seminars 

10/18/90 
1/16/91 



4/19/91 
6/26/91 



Proposition 115 



Selected Criminal 
Statutes for 1991* 



Welfare Fraud 

Grand Jury Indictments 



Jeff Brown 
Peter Keane 

Robert Evans 
Daro Inouye 
Robin Levine 
Joseph Spaeth 
Grace Suarez 

Income Rights Project 

Ephraim Margolin 



Misdemeanor Division Seminars 



7/26/90 
3/21/91 
5/16/91 



AIDS Testing & Counseling 
in Prostitution Cases 

Misdemeanor Pretrial 
Motions* 

Evidence Workshop* 



Ron Albers 
Grace Suarez 



Ron Albers 
Robin Levine 
Grace Suarez 



Page 32 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Seminars Offered by Private Organizations to which the Office Obtained 
Scholarships 



7/18-7/21/90 

8/18/90 

9/15/90 

11/10/10 

11/17/90 

12/8/90 

1/19/91 
2/23/91 
3/23/91 
6/8/91 

Computer Training 

9/7/90 
10/2/90 



California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) 
Trial Skills Institute, San Diego* 

CPDA Homicide Seminar, Napa* 

CPDA Sentencing Seminar, Sacramento* 

CPDA Cross-Examination Seminar, Lake Tahoe* 

CPDA Child Molestation Defense Seminar, Monterey* 

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ)* 
Annual Criminal Law Seminar, San Francisco 

CPDA Proposition 115- -A New Approach, Santa Clara* 

CPDA 4th Annual Defending Misdemeanor Cases, Sacramento* 

CPDA Annual Computers for Lawyers Workshop, San Francisco* 

CPDA Defending Drunk Driving Cases, San Francisco* 



Series of Word Perfect Classes 
Westlaw Training 



Grace Suarez 
Westlaw Personnel 



Additionally, this office scheduled and paid for various office members to attend computer 
training sessions offered by the City and County of San Francisco Information Services Division 
(ISD). 

*Note: All seminars denoted by an asterisk received criminal specialization credit from the 
state Bar of California. 



Page 33 



Sf 

PtS" 

^UppKl^tX OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
67 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

1990-1991 FISCAL YEAR 



ANNUAL EEPOET 
VOLUME 2 = SUPPLEMENT 

DOCUMENTS D E p T . 



Jeff Brown 
Public Defender 

Peter G. Keane 
Chief Attorney 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 2 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT 

A critical part of being Public Defender is speaking out on critical issues affecting criminal 
law and practice. During the last twelve months, I authored four essays which reflect on the many 
years I have served as San Francisco Public Defender. As such, these essays are, in essence, a 
distillation of that experience. Furthermore, they express, as much as the statistical tables in the 
Annual Report, the main themes of my administration and my public policy during my years in 
office. I hope that they can be helpful to others inside and ouside of public defender work. 

"Characteristics of a First Rate Public Defender's Office" was originally a speech delivered to 
the Oregon Defenders Association in Bend in October of 1990. 

"Uncertain Future For Criminal Defense" is the result of a study I did on trends in California 
criminal courts. It is awaiting publication in the California Defender. 

"The Public Defender Twenty Years Later" was published in 1991 in Res Ipsa Loqitur, the 
Law Review of the San Francisco Law School. 

And "Conflicts Representation in San Francisco" was a preliminary report to the Finance 
Committee of the Board of Supervisors after the Committee's request of my services in sorting out 
divergent views from divergent parties. It was a controversial document, but as Luther said: "Here 
I stand. I can say no more." 



Jeff Brown 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



TEN CHARACTERISTICS OF A FIRST-RATE 
PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE 



By Jeff Brown 
San Francisco Public Defender 



I am flattered by being invited to speak about the characteristics of a first-rate Public 
Defender's Office. My entire professional life has been devoted to making the San Francisco Public 
Defender a first-rate office. My staff and I have made great progress, and it is with some modesty 
that I say others should judge our success. 

In setting forth some of the qualities of a strong office, I am not claiming that my office is 
ideal. We, in San Francisco, have endured the same deprivations of resources that most offices 
have. And, quite honestly, I have to say that over twelve years as Public Defender, I have made my 
share of mistakes both in judgment and leadership. 

I must say that we, in San Francisco, have been guided enormously by the remarkable 
leadership qualities of a great Metropolitan Public Defender, Jim Hennings. 

Each office, of course, exists in a unique, governmental, and political environment. The 
structure of the office, its governance and its policies are responses to the peculiarities of that local 
culture. But, for all of the differences, certain qualities inhere in all solid Public Defender Offices. 
Some of the tell-tale signs hit you the minute you enter the waiting rooms; others require more 
considerable probing. In the following discussion, I will address ten qualities that consistently 
appear in strong offices. 



Pagel 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



1. Commitmen t: 

More than anything else, a strong Public Defender's Office must have a strong commitment 
to its mission-to protect the rights and the well-being of the clients. This is a passion for justice by 
the members of the staff, a fighting spirit, if you will. It seems almost a truism to say this. 
However, my encounter with too many offices leads me to believe that the absence of commitment 
is a professional disease that afflicts far and wide. 

The intensity of commitment is the health of the office. It derives from the policies of the 
leadership, and it is manifest in the work of the troops. You see it in the conversations of 
defenders; in the after-hour work; in the way they treat clients. I saw it at M.P.D within ten minutes 
of being there. Without it, the office becomes a lethargic bureaucracy, and it starts to serve other 
goals-calendar efficiency, the recoupment of client costs, and the on-the-job retirement of the staff. 

I do not know how to quantify commitment, but Public Defender Administrators must ask 
themselves whether it is there; and if not, why? That question, if nothing else, can be the beginning 
of a renewal. 

2. Personnel: 

Another truism: a first-rate office must have first-rate people. As Jim Hennings likes to say, 
you don't need much supervision, if you pick them right. Selection, evaluation, promotion, and 
retention are processes indispensable to strong personnel development They are also processes to 
be safeguarded. I say safeguarded because I know from personal experience that friendship, 
sympathy, and local pressure will rear heads to skew these processes. 

a) Selection - Selection is too important to be left to one person. A formal interview 
structure must be established. In San Francisco, we have an interviewing committee; and as part of 
the format, a hypothetical is given and other questions are asked of candidates. The committee then 



Page 2 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



makes a recommendation whether the Public Defender and the Chief Attorney should do a second 
interview. Usually, the Chief Attorney and I go back to the committee after our interview and 
together arrive at a consensus decision. Mistakes are made even if the best protocol is followed; but 
clearly, you can eliminate the most obvious ones. 

b) Evaluations - I am constantly surprised by the number of offices that do not do 
evaluations. I am distressed, but not surprised, by the perfunctory nature of evaluations. Most 
supervisors fear that honest evaluations will impair their relationship with the employees they 
supervise. 

Evaluations are essential for the employees' professional growth. They are the talking point 
between the supervisor and the employee that can bring about change and improvement, even better 
understanding between the two. 

I do not feel the format is important. What is important is that the manager must express 
himself or herself with clarity and with analysis. Checking a box will not do. And top management 
must insist that honesty not be sacrificed to politeness. 

c) Promotions - Promotions must reflect the ability of the employees to undertake greater 
assignments. They must be the recognition, hopefully stemming from the evaluation process, of 
professional growth. Easy as this is to say, a manager's desire to get along very often overrides. I 
have seen situations in California where top salaries are being paid to lawyers doing entry-level 
work. In such offices, seniority has become the sole criterion of promotion. 

The hard part about promotions is that the best pay is for management, and the best trial 
lawyers often make terrible managers. Another problem is that certain well-paying positions are 
specialized and are not suited for deserving trial attorneys. My suggestion is that offices develop a 
"dual path" ~ one that equalizes the pay of the best lawyers with those of management 



Page 3 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



3. Retention: 

In California, most offices are civil service. Rarely is an attorney asked to leave, no matter 
how burnt-out or sub-standard he or she may may have become. Unfortunately, most of these 
types of attorneys do not leave on their own volition. In fact, they have nowhere to go. Whatever 
the impediment, structure your office so that it is less likely to accumulate inadequate lawyers. The 
key thing is the use of honest and thorough evaluations. 

4. Mutual Respect and Understanding: 

It is critical that management have the trust and respect of the line troops. Managers should 
work as hard as everyone else, be available, and endeavor to be fair. Although managers and staff 
will be at odds from time to time, an over-all relationship of equity, consistent standards, and a 
willingness to listen to their concerns and grievances will solidify the relationship between the 
director and the staff and contribute mightily to the productivity and excellence of the office. 

5 . Comprehensive Services: 

Years, ago, the National Defender Institute devised a checklist for rating defender offices. 
Can the office, the checklist asked, provide legal counsel at the various stages between arrest and 
post-conviction? All communities are mandated, of course, to provide indigent representation in 
felony and misdemeanor cases. But do all counties have the ability (or willingness) to respond to 
the arrestee seeking advice, to line-ups, and to critical out-of-country, or even out-of-state, 
defendants? Many offices decline to answer. Many other offices reflect a paucity of resources that 
they cannot provide basic investigations, experts at trial, or even appellate services. Few offices 
provide social workers even though they are indispensable for sound sentencing or placement. 



Page 4 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



6 . Consistency of Quality: 

It is not enough that offices have good lawyers. Most all offices do. A first-rate Public 
Defender's Office has good lawyers at every phase of its operation. A few stars here and there will 
help the reputation a bit, and it will help the clients they get; but it will not compensate for poor 
over-all commitment, poor policies, and neglected areas of representation. 

7. Adaptability to Change: 

In California, and I suspect in Oregon, criminal law and procedure is constantly in change. 
For the most part, this change reflects a more punitive attitude about defendants and a desire to 
make it easier to convict. But whatever the gravity of the change, offices must be able to respond. 
They must find a way to compensate for procedural and substantive cases by fighting back. 
Usually, survival requires a thorough analysis of the impact of legislation, a plan of action, and 
monitoring of the effect of responding policies. Offices that do not do this find themselves 
confused, demoralized, and reduced to servility to the courts and prosecutors. 

Adaptability also means that offices can respond to budgetary cut-backs. In government 
today, it is a way of life. Good offices plot their consolidation of resources, and they live through 
lean years. 

8. Training: 

I do not believe that any office can prepare the new attorney for the courtroom through 
classroom training or even simulated training. Frankly, the way new attorneys trickle into the 
office, it is difficult to do this. But offices must train the staff on the law, its procedures, and on the 
an of the practice. Training is essential for the communication of legal information. It also gives the 
lawyer or the legal assistant an awareness of others' experiences and, with that, a knowledge of the 
possibilities open to him or to her. Thus, it breaks the defender out of a shell and gives the 
defender a sense of mission and camaraderie with his or her colleagues. 

Page 5 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



9 . Management Capability: 

You cannot rely on folklore, on general impressions, or even on your highly-developed 
intuition. Good management must be able to say authoritatively ~ that is, with numbers - what is 
going on. A good office can tell you the caseload, can tell you what the attorneys or the 
investigators are doing, and the over-all performance of the office. While managers can develop a 
fetish about numbers, without them, they are too isolated and too human to make an accurate 
assessment. 

10. Independence: 

Public Defenders can be victims of their own success. The work is controversial, unpopular, 
and contrary to the goal of every other agency in the justice system. A tough office will irritate 
politicians, judges, victim groups, and newspapers. Forms of intimidation are used - - e.g., budget 
cuts, grand jury investigations, firing of directors. I have seen great offices hobbled for these 
reasons and with those tools. In California, the State Public Defender, which did first-rate appellate 
work, had its budget cut in half and witnessed its leadership purge right-wing under a pro-death 
penalty governor. A first-rate office must have the institutional protection against such possibilities. 
It is not enough to do good work (although it helps). Public Defenders must work with the bar , 
the judiciary and the community to ensure the protection of the office; so that, ultimately, the rights 
of the defendants are beyond compromise. Long term, you cannot have a first-rate office without 
independence. 

Conclusion: 

I hope I have outlined the most salient qualities of a strong Public Defender's Office. 
Developing my list has been a source of self-examination for me; I hope it is for you. 



Page 6 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



UNCERTAIN FUTURE FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE* 



By Jeff Brown 
San Francisco Public Defender 



California's criminal defense bar is the model for the United States. Every county has an 
organized system for the appointment of qualified, competent counsel to represent indigent accused 
clients who make up about 75% of all people charged with crimes. During the last 25 years, those 
systems— usually Public Defender Offices— consistently improved the professionalism and talent of 
their staff and increased their budgets. As a result, attorneys presently representing indigent 
defendants in California are, for the most part, dedicated, highly skilled and reasonably 
compensated. 

Despite these achievements within the structure of California's criminal justice system, 
disturbing trends over the last decade cast significant doubt on the present quality of advocacy and 
on whether that advocacy is truly protecting the rights of the indigent accused. These trends are not 
unique to public defenders as opposed to private counsel appointed by the courts. Nor are they 
characteristics of any particular geographic locality. 

This is what the statistics show: 

(1) The percentage of felony convictions in Superior courts has sharply risen. In 1980, the 
percentage of felony convictions out of total cases disposed of in the Superior Courts was 79.3%. 
Today it is 93%. 



See Supplement. 

Page 1 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

(2) The number of jury trials conducted in criminal cases in the California Superior Courts 
has declined to a point of statistical insignificance. In 1980, the percentage of criminal cases 
disposed of through jury trials in the Superior Courts was 12.4%. Today it is only 3.9%. 

(3) The number of pleas of guilty to felony charges entered in Municipal Courts has 
increased dramatically. In 1980, the number of such guilty pleas constituted 17% of all felony 
sentences imposed in California. Today, that number is over 51%; more than a majority of all 
cases. 

These are guilty pleas usually entered within weeks, and often only days after a defendant's 
arrest. They are guilty pleas entered with no preliminary hearing having been held. They are 
usually guilty pleas resulting in felony sentences, frequently to terms in state prison. 

The reason for these trends is because of an increased accommodational approach, as 
opposed to an adversarial approach, on the part of defense attorneys. These attitudes of 
non-confrontation developed subtly, almost unconsciously, in response to a number of phenomena 
which occurred in the criminal justice system in the 1980s. The principal factors were: 

i) The number of felony cases in the Superior Felony Courts increased 174% in the 
last ten years. Although the staff and budgets of Public Defender Offices and the funding for 
private appointed counsel grew during this time, that growth and increase in funding did not come 
close to matching the increased caseload. 

Prosecutors and courts, as well as public defenders and private counsel, all felt the impact of 
the caseload increase which was not matched by a similar increase in staff and funds. But the main 
brunt fell on defense attorneys who had to represent the increased number of people who were 
charged. As a consequence, early pleas of guilty and the forgoing of jury trials developed as coping 
mechanisms to deal with those growing caseloads. 

ii) Since 1978, the Legislature and the voters steadily increased the penalties for crimes, 
while removing significant defenses. Proposition 8, the Victim's Bill of Rights, and Prop. 1 15, the 
Crime Victim's Reform Act were the most noteworthy examples. Because defendants face much 
tougher sentences today, defense attorneys are afraid to risk giving their clients the full 

Page 2 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

constitutional protections which are available within the adversary system. As a result, attorneys 
now exert enormous pressure on defendants to trade an early plea of guilty for leniency in the plea 
bargaining process. 

Hi) Judges and Court administrators emphasize early disposition of cases over jury 
trials. Judicial managers and judges see the finite amount of money and resources available to the 
courts in post-Prop. 13 California. As a result, they view jury trials as a hindrance to efficient 
calendar administration and as an undesirable nuisance which creates backlogs and ties up the 
courts. 

The same state of mind has taken hold in regard to preliminary hearings as well as to every 
judicial proceeding in a criminal case other than the guilty plea. As a result, judges create incentives 
for early guilty pleas with more lenient sentences. On the other hand, although no judge will ever 
admit it, every one knows that the defendant who insists on his day in court and his constitutional 
right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt will be 
punished for doing so. 

The ethical and professional basis of advocacy by a criminal defense attorney is to ensure that 
no client is convicted unless every legitimate avenue of defense has been vigorously asserted and 
exhausted. This is not some academic ideal. It is supposed to be the living reality of our system of 
constitutional protections. The principal is clearly embodied in the Sixth Amendment's 
right-to-counsel and in other articles of the Bill of Rights, in particular the principal of Due Process 
of Law. 

Some of the things which this requires are: that defense attorneys consult with and advise 
their clients; that they independently investigate the facts of the case; and that they research and be 
familiar with the relevant points of law. More important, however, is the requirement that the 
attorney actually advocate—that he fight for the client. This means cross-examining prosecution 
witnesses, presenting witnesses for the defense, and arguing the client's innocence to a jury. 

The constitutional protections are intentionally designed to make it difficult for an accused 
person to be convicted. Those protections are a crucible in which criminal charges are to be 

Page 3 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

rigorously tested for their validity. For the accused, the function of the defense attorney is the most 
important component of that crucible. The lawyer balances out the other components of prosecutor, 
judge and jury, and provides the essential symmetry to the system which puts the charges to the 
test. 

All of this emerges from two essential concerns which historically have been our hallmarks 
as a free people: 1) The innocent are to be protected; 2) The power of government to abuse its 
citizens is to be restrained. 

A criminal defense bar which denies its clients their day in court by pleading most of them 
guilty within days of arrest, and which conducts almost no jury trials, is a failure. That bar does 
not protect the innocent. That bar does not fulfill its constitutional role of checking the power of 
government. 

The dramatic rise in convictions has increased the danger of innocent people being convicted. 
As that conviction rate moves closer to 100% ( it is now 93%), the probability for miscarriages of 
justice grow greater. 

Entering guilty pleas shortly after an arrest, for a substantial number of defendants, means 
that they have not had the full benefit of counsel who investigated their cases, researched the 
relevant legal points, and consulted with them. It means they have been denied their Sixth 
Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to present witnesses on their own 
behalf. 

By allowing early guilty pleas, defense attorneys encourage prosecutors to file marginal, 
even doubtful cases. It is not coincidental that as the number of early guilty pleas skyrocket and the 
overall rate of convictions climb, the number of dismissals of charges after felony arrests is 
declining. District Attorneys are aware that their cases are facing less and less challenges by the 
defense. So charges are more likely to be filed with less regard for the existence of evidence to back 
those charges up. As a result, there is increased danger of prosecutions of people on trumped up 
charges, or for vindictive or invidious reasons. 

I have no illusion that plea bargaining will go away . Nor should it. Done properly, plea 

Page 4 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

bargaining can be beneficial to both the prosecution and defense. But what we have today is 
rampant plea bargaining, without the attorney being able to make an informed decision. The 
attorney is stampeded into a plea out of fear of greater punishment to the client at a later time. 

This institutionalization of plea bargaining as the sine qua non of criminal defense advocacy 
is insidious and unhealthy to a vibrant, honest protection of individual rights. It is also a corrupting 
influence on the professional development and the maintenance of criminal lawyers' forensic skills. 
Many lawyers now plea bargain simply from the habit of doing it. The less they try cases, the more 
insecure they become about trying cases, and the more they plea bargain. The process feeds upon 
itself. 

The criminal defense community must reverse these trends. If we don't, we are simply 
collaborators with the prosecution against our own clients. It will not be easy for lawyers, after a 
decade of avoiding trials, to begin trying cases again. But lawyers must ask themselves honestly if 
they are really prepared to counsel a client in good faith to enter a plea of guilty. They must have 
the courage to confront a system whose energy is spent discouraging them from protecting their 
clients' constitutional rights. We have to do this soon. For we have already given away too much, 
and for all of us, the hour is late and the outcome uncertain. 



Page 5 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



SUPPLEMENT 
UNCERTAIN FUTURE FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE 



By Jeff Brown 
San Francisco Public Defender 



Most criminal justice professionals believe that there have been important changes in the 
criminal justice system in the last decade in California. I am not sure, however, if they are aware of 
the exact nature and magnitude of these changes. My purpose in citing conviction rates and trends 
in felony pleas as well as jury trials is to call attention to these enormous statistical changes and the 
serious questions they raise about the nature and quality of criminal defense advocacy. 

In the following pages, I have presented a slighdy more detailed account of the trends I wrote 
about in the article. I have compared some of these changes in five California counties: Alameda; 
Orange; Sacramento; San Francisco; and Santa Clara. I believe that the reader will be struck by the 
consistency of these statewide trends with those in the local communities. 

The changes discussed in this supplement are: 

1 ) The rise in the felony conviction rate. 

2) The decline in the number of felony jury trials. 

3) The rise in the number of felony pleas of guilty in the Municipal 
Court. 

4) The rise in the felony filing rate. 

5) The rise in the felony caseload of the Municipal and Superior Courts in the 
absence of a corresponding increase in resources. 



Judicial statistics in California are reported on a fiscal year basis (July 1 - June 30) 

Page 1 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

1) The Felony Conviction Rate Has Consistently Risen Over the Last Decade: 

Figure 1A indicates the upward statewide trend in the percentage of felony convictions 
against total dispositions of Superior Court Criminal cases: 



Figure 1 A: % of Felony Convictions 
Per Total Superior Court Dispositions 






> 
c 
o 
u 



c 
e 
o 

a 

a 




Fiscal Year 



(Source: Annual Reports of Judicial Council of California, 1981 to 1991) 



Page 2 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure IB illustrates a comparative breakdown of this statewide trend as it relates to the five 
California counties surveyed: 



Figurei B: Comparison of conviction rates in 5 counties in 2 different fiscal years 

vr 



c 
o 

o 

> 
c 
o 
u 



c 
e 
u 

o 

Q. 




1979-80 
m 1989-90 



9 

S 
2 

W 



ra 

■D 
O 

E 
n 



9 


o 

c 


8 


c 
re 


9 

E 


CO 

O 

c 





re 


re 




o 
re 


u. 




CO 


c 
re 
CO 



re 

re 
O 
re 

c 
re 
CO 



(Source: Annual Reports of Judicial Council of California, 1981 to 1991) 



Page 3 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

2) The Numb er of Jury Trials Has Declined as a Percentage of Total 
Dispositions in the Superior Court: 

In the 1976-77 fiscal year, jury trials represented 10.5% of the total Superior Court felony 
dispositions. In 1979-80, that figure dropped to 9%. 

Figure 2 sets forth the jury trial rate for criminal cases in five counties in the 1979-80 and 
1989-90 fiscal years. 



Figure 2: % Jury Trial Rate Per Superior Court Dispositions 




o 

i 

2 
« 

55 



a 

"8 

E 
a 

< 



© 

c 
a 



o 

c 
a 
E 
a 
.- 
o 
a 
w 



§ 


a 
a 


o 


O 


c 
a 


a 


h» 


c 


u. 


a 


c 


CO 


a 




to 





(Source: Annual Reports of Judicial Council of California, 1980 to present) 



Page 4 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



3) The Numb er of Felony Pleas of Guilty in the Municipal Court Has 
Sharply Risen Over the Last Decade: 

Today, more than half the felony sentences result from pleas of guilty entered by 
defendants in the Municipal Court. These pleas usually occur within weeks of the defendants' 
arrests. Almost all occur without a single witness ever being sworn. The plea is entered in lieu of 
a preliminary hearing; the Municipal Court Magistrate then certifies the matter for sentencing in the 
Superior Court. 

In the article, I argued that it is unlikely that the attorney, in the weeks, if not days after the 
arrest, has time to adequately investigate,research and consult with the client. In one county in 
California, felony defendants are often presented with offers for plea bargains on their first 
meeting with their court appointed attorneys. 

Figure 3A depicts the growth rate of felony pleas of guilty in the Municipal Court during 
the last decade: 

Figure 3A: % Pleas of Guilty Per Municipal Court Sentences 
60 




T — ■ 


j— i 






— 1 — ' 


1 — 1 — ■ 


1 


1 


1 


r— 1 — ' 


— r 


O 
00 


00 


CM 
00 


CO 
00 


00 


CO 


CO 


1^ 

CO 


CO 
CO 


en 

CO 


o 




o 

00 


00 


CVJ 
CO 


CO 
CO 


CO 


CO 


(0 
CO 


CO 


CO 
CO 


en 

CO 



(Source: Judicial Council Reports, 1981 to 1991) 



Page 5 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



As figure 3A indicates, the largest changes came about in the 82-83 and 83-84 fiscal years. 
This was the period immediately following the voters' approval of Proposition 8, the Victim's Bill 
of Rights, in June of 1982. Prop. 8 sought to limit strictly plea bargaining in the Superior 
Court in certain serious felony cases. Prop. 8 did not prohibit plea bargaining of these serious 
felonies in the Municipal Court. It appears, however, that in many jurisdictions, there was an 
increased case of felony pleas in the Municipal Court in order not to run afoul of the limitations on 
plea bargaining in the Superior Court. 

It would be erroneous to attribute this course of early pleas to Prop. 8 alone. In the four 
years prior to the enactment of Prop. 8 (and this is not shown in Figure 3A), felony Municipal 
Court pleas were increasingly utilized. Thus, Prop. 8 seems to have given impetus to a 
preexisting trend. 

Figure 3B is a breakdown of this trend as it applies to six California counties. I have added 
San Mateo county's experience because it is one county in California without a Public Defender 
type Office. Instead, the courts appoint private counsel for indigent defendants. One might 
suspect that since private attorneys do not face the caseload stresses of public defenders (the 
increased caseload can be spread among an increasing number of lawyers), there would be a 
lesser need for the use of felony pleas in the Municipal Court. However, as Figure 3B shows, 
lawyers in San Mateo county allow felony pleas in the Municipal Court with a greater frequency 
than their counterparts in the other surveyed counties. 



Page 6 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure 3B: % Felony Pleas In Muni Court/Total Felony Convictions 



% Felony Pleas 




i 1 1 h 

79^80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 



'■■Orange 
O- Alameda 
X San Francisco 
^•Sacramento 
-*• Santa Clara 
■A- San Mateo 



(Source: Judicial Council Reports, 1981 to 1991) 

There are counties in California where Municipal Court felony guilty pleas are not as 
common. In Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties, for example, the felony plea rates were 
33.3% and 22% respectively in fiscal year 89-90 respectively. But statewide, they are becoming 
the predominate manner of disposing of felony cases. 



Page 7 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



4) The Felony Filing Rate Has Been Rising In the Last Decade: 

After the police make a felony arrest, supervising police personnel and the district attorney 
conduct separate reviews. The supervising police officers have the authority to approve the arrest 
and refer it to the district attorney's office. They also have the authority to release the person 
arrested, if that is warranted. If the arrest is referred to the district attorney, the district attorney 
has several options: 

file a felony complaint 

reduce the charge to a misdemeanor if the offense can be charged as a 

felony or a misdemeanor. 

substitute a lesser and different offense (usually a misdemeanor) 

discharge the person entirely 

District attorneys will usually file a misdemeanor charge rather than a felony if there is a 
less aggravated factual situation. They will order offenses discharged if difficulty would exist in 
proving the guilt of the accused. The district attorney may discharge an accused for other reasons 
as well; e.g., the arrestee has other prosecutions pending, or a defendant is on probation and it 
saves time and energy to move to revoke his or her probation. 

District attorneys' filing practices are also affected by their caseloads. If the caseloads are 
high and the courts congested, they may be less inclined to file borderline cases or cases that 
might require further investigation. On the other hand, if the caseload declines or the courts are 
less backlogged, they may be disposed to prosecute more cases. 



Page 8 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure 4 shows the felony filing rate. As the figure indicates, the number of felony arrests 
resulting in felony prosecutions has risen in the last decade. 



Figure 4: % Felony Arrests resulting In Felony Prosecutions 

50 




(Source: Criminal Justice Profile, 1989, California Department of Justice) 

In the article, I stated my belief that this upward trend is tied to a diminishing adversarial 
spirit among defense attorneys. In other words, defense attorneys are making it too easy for 
District Attorneys to prosecute cases. Consequently, District Attorneys are more willing to file 
cases that they would have dumped in previous years. 

It would be extremely difficult to prove that the rising felony filing rate is causally related to 
the decreasing number of jury trials and the increasing use of Municipal Court felony pleas. 
Nevertheless, I suggest the possible link as a hypothesis. 



Page 9 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



5) The Crim inal Courts Have Experienced a Caseload Increase in the 
Absence of a C orresponding Increase in Resources: 

In the late 1980's, the criminal courts experienced an avalanche of felony cases. A 
comparison of statewide totals between 1979-80 and 1989-90 in the Municipal and Superior 
Courts is illuminating: 



Figure 5A: Municipal Court Felony Filings 



89-90 



79-80 




100000 200000 

Number of Filings 



300000 



(Source: Judicial Council Reports, 1981, 1991) 



Page 10 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure 5B: Superior Court Felony Filings 



89-90 



79-80 



" WM^lW ■ ■ I |l I III I I 






iiiiiii 



1 



52346 



150975 



100000 
Number of Superior Court Felony Filings 



7 



200000 



(Source: Judicial Council Reports, 1981, 1991) 



These increases have outstripped the abilities of the courts, prosecutors and public 
defenders to cope with the cases. As indicated by Figure 5C, the Department of Justice reports 
comparatively small growth in the number of judges, D.A.s and P.D.s. 



Page 1 1 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure 5C: Number of Courts, D.A.s, and P.D.s 



4000 



y\ 



3000- 



2000 



1000 





Courts 
Prosecutors 
Public Defenders 



1980 1989 

Year 



(Source: Criminal Justice Profile, Department of Justice, 1981, 1991) 

The growing gap between caseload and resources has put a tremendous pressure on court 
administrators to become more efficient in handling the work flow. Jury trials are something to 
be avoided because one case ties up a courtroom, a judge, a prosecutor, a defender and court 
attaches. Early pleas, on the other hand, are to be encouraged because they shorten the life of a 
case, making it easier for everybody. 

Although Figure 5C indicates a greater growth in public defender offices between 1980 and 
1990, that growth has been from a pitifully low base. In 1980, the ratio of public defenders to 
district attorneys was 57.67%; in 1989, it had risen to 66.6%, despite the fact that public 
defenders represent 70-75% of the entire criminal caseload in the court system. 



Page 12 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



How Defenders Are Expected to Respond: 

Recently, the Office of Criminal Justice Planning issued directives on grants for public 
defenders. The source of the grants would be a federal program, the Drug Abatement Act. The 
directives call for the participation of public defender attorneys in drug cases, as part of a "district 
attorney/public defender early disposition team": 

"This strategy is designed to enhance the administration and processing of 
drug cases in the court system. The strategy is aimed at ensuring that these 
cases will be disposed of in the most appropriate manner. The strategy must 
be implemented by District Attorney and Public Defender Felony Case 
Coordinator Teams, working cooperatively to attain the maximum number of 
appropriate felony dispositions at the earliest possible stage of the criminal 
court process." 

Thus, to get federal dollars, the public defender must give assurances that every effort will 
be made to achieve the earliest possible disposition for the maximum number. Presumably, the 
public defender office that is contentious, that takes cases to hearings and explores every avenue 
of defense will be disqualified. 

The Office of Criminal Justice Planning directives reflect the prevailing spirit in the criminal 
justice system that great caseloads demand efficient administrators- - those who are prepared to 
"process cases" rather than advocate their clients' cause. 



Page 13 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
TWENTY YEARS LATER* 



By Jeff Brown 
San Francisco Public Defender 



1991 will mark my twentieth year as a Public Defender. I began in October of 1971, as 
Vietnam demonstrations raged and as prisons such as San Quentin and Attica were racked with 
tension and rebellion. I came to public defense from a family background of participation in 
criminal law. My uncle, Pat, had been District Attorney and Attorney General before becoming 
Governor. My father, Frank, had been a top prosecutor in the District Attorney's Office before 
becoming a defense attorney. In my last year at San Francisco Law School, I had worked at the 
San Francisco Committee on Crime studying the San Francisco criminal justice agencies. As a 
young man who grew up around the criminal courts and who was infected with the revolutionarism 
of the day, it was only natural that I should become a Public Defender. 

The Early Years 

Looking at the court system of 1971, it now seems backward, arbitrary, and personality 
driven. Almost every defendant, no matter how trivial the crime, was held in custody. There were 
few O.R.s (own recognizance) or citation releases. Judges were virtually unaccountable. They 
would hold people in custody until and unless they pled guilty. Most thought nothing of holding ex 
parte sessions with the prosecutor to settle the daily calendar. They routinely denied defense writs 
and motions without reading them and signed virtually every search warrant presented. The 
business of the court was to convict, because judges believed that most accused persons were 
guilty. 



Res Ipsa Loquitur, 1991. 

Pagel 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

To be a Public Defender was to feel that you were truly on the side of the angels. After all, 
you were helping people by getting them out of jail., if nothing else. In a typical day, you would 
enter the holding cells appurtenant to your courts, wade through a packed mass of humanity, and 
discuss what you could do about the case with your client. By morning's end, you would have 
managed to get most everyone to the podium, pled them guilty, and sent them home. 

Although I felt satisfaction in clutching these people from jail for such offenses as marijuana 
possession, loitering and soliciting acts of prostitution, I was keenly aware this was a fraudulent 
justice system. I was also aware that I was complicit in it. In the process of "copping" everyone 
out, I had no extensive lawyer-client discussions; I had not investigated a solitary aspect of their 
cases, and I had only vaguely informed the clients of the consequences of their pleas. This was 
hardly the ideal of the Sixth Amendment espoused by Chief Justice Warren in Gideon v. 
Wainwright. 

In 197 1 , the political and moral climate was forcing a reexamination of the justice system. In 
San Francisco, the trial of six Soledad prisoners—the Soledad Brothers— strongly suggested that 
prison authorities had framed them in the killing of a guard. The California Supreme Court in a 
series of cases threw out convictions based on police searches conducted on the flimsiest grounds. 
In the Legislature, there were calls for the elimination of the Indeterminate Sentence Law which kept 
prisoners in for potentially life terms for such crimes as sale of marijuana. 

In the midst of this reexamination, county governments were establishing new Public 
Defender Offices and expanding existing ones. There was an emerging consensus that the rights of 
poor people in criminal cases must be protected. As a result, Public Defender Offices underwent 
continuous growth from 1971 to 1981. With this growth came the Public Defender Movement. 
The leadership of these offices was held by extraordinary men of conviction and determination - 
Paul Ligda in Solano; Sheldon Portman in Santa Clara; Dick Buckley and Bill Littlefield in Los 
Angeles; Jim Hooley in Alameda; Dick Irwin in Ventura; John Cleary, Jim Hewitt, and John Van 
De Kamp in the federal offices, to name a few. They organized the California Public Defenders 

Page 2 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Association and established an effective legislative presence in the person of Dave Goldstein, 
pushing bills and opposing others. Before the appellate courts, they regularly presented amicus 
curiae briefs on wide array of issues. On the national scene, they were in the forefront of 
promulgating professional standards for the competent representation of indigent defendants. 

The Good Years 

By 1977, the movement for criminal justice reform was in full swing. A liberal governor, 
Jerry Brown, appointed a former Public Defender, Rose Elizabeth Bird, as Chief Justice. She 
would bring to California Supreme Court a deep sense of justice and the need to redress the rights 
of the accused. Moreover, Jerry Brown would appoint minorities, women, and civil libertarian 
lawyers to every level of the judiciary. The Legislature followed Brown's lead and enacted the 
Determinate Sentence Law, which imposed fixed sentences and limitations on consecutive 
sentences. It also created the State Public Defender to handle appellate cases, replacing the ad-hoc, 
low-quality appointment system in effect at that time. An A.C.L.U. alum, Paul Halvonik, was 
picked as the office's head, and he picked an extraordinarily talented group of attorneys. These 
attorneys immediately began challenging prosecutorial-oriented decisional laws, while vastly 
enhancing the quality of appellate representation. 

These developments contributed to the effectiveness of Public Defender Offices in concrete 
ways. With new and inspired staff, criminal cases were worked up and won. Legal challenges 
were posed to illegal searches and confessions; and with more scrupulous judges and better laws, 
these challenges often prevailed. Police personnel files were unsealed, and brutal and perjurious 
cops were exposed. 

As a Public Defender, you could not help but feel you were riding the crest for a criminal 
justice revolution. Each advance sheet brought new and helpful decisions and the hope of new 
tactics for clients' cause. Public Defenders, feeling a new confidence, began to push at the frontiers 
of the rights of the accused and the detained. They invaded jails, prisons and police stations, and 

Page 3 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

warned suspects to remain silent before being interrogated. They went beyond their common duties 
and secured habeas corpus release for convicts in ground-breaking cases. They sued their counties 
for better jail conditions, and they secured the release of inappropriately-committed mental patients. 

There was a new confidence as Public Defenders expanded the frontiers of rights for the 
accused and the detained, and it seemed that the nation would finally live up to the ideals of the Bill 
of Rights. So, in 1978, when San Francisco Public Defender Bob Nicco decided not to run for 
reelection, and the office vote selected me as its candidate, I was eager and excited to bring our 
office into that movement which had redefined the way Public Defenders operated nationwide. 

In November of 1978, 1 was elected to my first four-year term. 

The Attack Begins 

In many ways my inauguration coincided with the high water mark of that Public Defender 
Revolution. By then, strong forces were developing which ran counter to the liberal notion of 
criminal justice reform. Those forces went on the attack, and by the late 70s, they were gaining 
successfully, delivering their message that the courts had become too liberal and that the rights of 
the accused had eclipsed the rights of victims. 

The California District Attorneys Association began lobbying legislators to lengthen and 
harden the truncated sentencing scheme in the Determinate Sentence Law. Jerry Brown, himself, 
fearing that it would become a political issue, moved fast to accommodate them. The death penalty, 
previously declared unconstitutional in two California Supreme Court cases, was restored. Shortly 
after its enactment, the voters approved an even stronger version of the death penalty. A move 
began, and almost succeeded in 1978, to block the nomination and confirmation of Chief Justice 
Bird. Moreover, many perceived-to-be lenient judges, who were appointed by Brown, were beaten 
at the polls. 



Page 4 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

In 1978, another initiative passed: Proposition 13, limiting the tax base of local 
governments. Although Public Defender Offices would continue to grow in response to population 
and caseload after Prop. 13, county governments became increasingly tightfisted. Boards of 
supervisors increasingly came to view public defense as an expensive luxury. 

The counterrevolution won its most important victory in 1982 with the voters' approval of 
Prop 8, the Victims Bill of Rights. A small citizens group working with a few politicians and 
prosecutors placed a series of constitutional and statutory changes on the ballot. Whole areas of 
criminal and procedural law were changed. Victim statements were to be allowed. Victim 
notification of sentencing was required. Restitution for criminal damages became a matter of right. 
Prior convictions of an accused could be introduced without limitation. The insanity law was 
changed. Plea bargaining was limited. Sentences for repeat offenders in serious felony cases were 
increased. The exclusionary rule was limited to the minimum necessity under the Federal 
Constitution. Even though Prop. 8 was opposed by prominent judges, legislators, several district 
attorneys, and many major newspapers, and despite credible estimates that it would cost hundreds 
of dollars, it received 56% of the vote. 

The Legislature got the message. Its members outdid themselves attempting to prove their 
bona fides in the war against crime. As a result, sentences became progressively stiffer. There was 
enormous focus on the protection of victim-witnesses. Bills were introduced and passed to shield 
them from courtroom appearances with little concern for the historic right to confront one's accuser. 
Proposals constantly were offered to allow police greater leeway in stopping and searching. 
Wiretap legislation was passed. A confiscation of drug-related assets was passed. The list seemed 
endless, and the accommodational spirit of governors and legislatures was almost as endless. 

While this was happening in Sacramento, Public Defenders found themselves less and less 
popular in their communities. In at least seven counties, Chief Public Defenders were subjected to 
termination proceedings. For the most part, these termination proceedings grew out of the 
resentment that they were doing too much to defend their clients. 

Page 5 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

The unpopularity was not wholly the work of the ultra-right. To some extent, the challenge 
to County Defenders came from moderate and even liberal politicians. These were men and women 
like then (now congresswoman) Supervisor Barbara Boxer in Marin who had become disaffected 
with the criminal justice system. Others were unwilling to provide additional funds to " criminals," 
as they called Public Defender clients, in face of cutbacks to schools and social programs. 
The Crisis of Faith 

What is more, there was, within the Public Defender Movement, a crisis of faith. From the 
late 1960s onward, a significant number of defenders had entered their offices because they wanted 
to be part of a larger movement to empower poor people. They could make their contribution to 
eliminate the inadequate quality of representation of poor defendants. Some, a minority, viewed the 
police and courts as instruments of class and race suppression. This minority tended to think that 
most criminal defendants were framed, or that even when they weren't they should nonetheless be 
excused, because crime was a response to poverty and the despair of poverty. This sense of 
injustice was the driving force of intense efforts by many bright lawyers who entered Public 
Defender Offices during this period. They spent long hours and worked weekends, digging up 
witnesses, finding alternatives to jail, and grinding out writs and appeals. 

But as the world around them became more conservative, so did they. After a few years, 
they watched too many clients they had struggled to acquit turn up in more serious beefs. Many 
were shocked out of their residual revolutionarism by the shooting of Fay Stender, the consummate 
movement attorney, by a member of the Black Guerrilla Family. As a Chief Assistant State Public 
Defender, Ezra Hendon, a lawyer of impeccable liberal credentials, puts it, after her attack: 
"Her funeral marked the end of an era in my life, and I think the end of an era 
period. Her conviction that you could be committed to a political goal, work for it 
and be brilliant in its service— in a clean way— that's over for me. I don't know 
about others, but I can't have that belief anymore. 



Page 6 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

You don't ever quite believe you're vulnerable that way. I represent clients 
who have varying levels of criminality. Many are on death row and, believe me, I 
have no illusions— these are dangerous, dangerous people. My attitude toward 
them is strictly professional: I am their lawyer, and I don't make the mistake of that 
I am anything more than that." 

Ultimately, many of the best attorneys were lured to private firms with better salaries and the 
promise of partnership. They had worked too hard— and too long— at their relatively low salaries, 
and they were starting families; they needed to buy homes. 

Getting Through The 80s 

For Public Defenders, the years since 1982 can be characterized by tighter budgets, tougher 
laws, and tougher courts. Caseloads in most counties have risen without corresponding staff 
increases. With the explosion of crack and crack arrests, many offices, particularly in San 
Francisco, Alameda, and Los Angeles, reached the breaking point. At certain times, they were 
forced to turn back appointments, but only after they had already accepted more than they could 
handle. 

As if the declining resources and public hostility were not enough, defenders witnessed the 
recall of three liberal State Supreme Court Justices and their replacement by strong 
prosecutorial-type judges by a newly-elected governor, George Deukmejian, whose career had been 
built on his advocacy of the death penalty. A newly-constituted Supreme Court soon began the 
work of reversing major decisions in the areas of unlawful searches, seizures, and trial error. They 
were backed up by equally conservative judges on the appellate and trial courts. 

With more conservative, sometimes more reactionary judges, and legislative changes, the 
state prison rate rose 300% between 1981 and 1990. Jury trials declined during these years, 
because defendants realized that judges punished more severely those who went to trial rather than 
those who cut a deal early. 

Page 7 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

The nadir came in 1990 with the passage of Prop. 115. A prosecutor's dreamchild, Prop. 
1 15 eliminated sequestered attorney voir dire and post-indictment preliminary hearings; it allowed 
prosecution discovery of the defense case prior to trial; and it widened the death penalty, among 
other things. It took away the tools of the defense attorney, the remaining advantages of defense 
advocacy, and it crippled the very ability to win an acquittal. 

The New PDs 

I was first elected Public Defender of San Francisco in 1978. In the twelve years I have 
served, extraordinarily dedicated men and women have worked at—and have applied to work at-- 
Public Defender Offices. But, just as there have been changes in the justice system, there have also 
been noticeable changes in the profile of job applicants. 

In the last five years, in hundreds of interviews I conducted, applicants generally tell me that 
they don't want to be prosecutors, because they can't be that hard-hearted. They say they look 
forward to practicing the type of law that vindicates the Bill of Rights at the same time that they get 
trial experience. 

But I rarely hear the maxim from an earlier time: "I want to be a Public Defender to fight for 
the poor." 

Theirs is a different fighting faith, a far different dynamic than the "storming of the 
barricades" rhetoric of the 1970s. But the question I cannot yet answer is whether today's less 
ideological and more professional rationales can continue to motivate Public Defenders with the 
same diamond-hard drive of the 60s and 70s. 

Looking Ahead 

For all of the changes and often backward steps Public Defenders have witnesses in the last 
twenty years, I feel the same as I did when I began. I am both pessimistic and optimistic. 



Page 8 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

The reasons for pessimism are obvious. But my optimism comes from my belief, based in 
large part on intuition, that Public Defenders are more effective, and perhaps even more 
comfortable, with handicaps that stem from being the underdog. For all the headiness of the period 
of criminal justice reform between 1971 and 1978, things sometimes came too easily during those 
years. The California voters were simply not prepared for the kinds of meaningful changes that 
people like Rose Bird tried to bring about 

I am also optimistic, because I know there has been too much social change in America to 
have everything revert to the pre- 1971 years. The body of procedural protections against illegal 
searches and seizures is now so much a part of our public ethos that a William Rehnquist— or a 
Malcolm Lucas-led court will not be able to dismantle it. 

To see that there is increased social scrutiny and accountability, one need only look at the 
Rodney King beating in Los Angeles. The press is everywhere, and its exposure conditions the 
consciousness of our society. And this public sensitivity means there will continue to be deterrents 
and remedies to the abuses of the police, the prosecution, and the judiciary. 

And there will be deterrents to incompetent legal representation too. 

On that front, Public Defender Offices are larger (in San Francisco we have gone from 30 
public defenders in 1971 to 71 today), more selective in hiring and more professional in their 
approaches and representation. And regardless of the changes in the law, defense attorneys are not 
about to permit judges to hold their clients hostage to be ransomed with guilty pleas! 



Page9 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



The Challenge. 

The challenge for Defender Offices everywhere is to match that steely intensity which led to 
the successful "law and order" couter-revolution. This means that, to protect the accused and win 
trials, Public Defenders must be better lawyers, harder workers, and more persuasive advocates 
than prosecutors. 

In place of bleeding hearts and radical rhetoric, Public Defender Offices of the 1990s will 
need men and women of uncompromising, professional spirits; people who know the lightness of 
the unpopular, as well as the critically important-and democratically imperative— cause which they 
serve. 



Page 10 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



CONFLICTS REPRESENTATION IN SAN FRANCISCO 



By Jeff Brown 
San Francisco Public Defender 



The Public Defender is required to represent all persons accused of crimes who do not have 
money for their own counsel. 1 However, there are cases where the Public Defender cannot represent 
an indigent accused because of a conflict-of-interest between that person and another public defender 
client. These conflicts of interest are usually when there are two or more defendants in a single case, 
and the Public Defender, by law, may only represent one of them. The court appoints a private 

counsel to represent the co-defendant(s). 2 Other conflicts of interest occur when an accused is a 
witness against a present client of the Public Defender. 3 Here, too, the court will appoint a lawyer 
from the private bar. 

In recent years, the costs of private counsel in conflict cases has sharply risen. Figure IB sets 
out the growth of total conflict costs (Municipal Court as well as Superior Court Costs) from FY 
1982-83 to 90-91. This year the conflict budgets for the Municipal and Superior Courts amount to 
67.4% of the entire budget of the City and County's Public Defender's Office. Yet, the total number 
of conflict cases is probably no more than 20% of the caseload of the Public Defender's Office. (See 
Figure 1A). 



1 Government Code Section 27702, S.F. Charter Section 3.403. 

2 Halloway v. Arkansas (1978) 435 U.S. 475; People v. Mrouzko (1983) 35 C.3d 86. 

3 State Bar Formal Opinion 1980-82. 

Page 1 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure 1 A: Total Number of Conflict Cases 
(Municipal and Superior Courts) 



8000- 



m 
o 
m 

CO 

O 



<P 
n 

E 

3 



O 



6000- 



4000- 



2000" 




CO 
GO 


CO 


in 

CO 


CO 

CO 


CO 


CO 
CO 


Cn 
CO 


o 
en 


en 


CM 

CO 


co 

CO 


CO 


in 

CO 


CO 

CO 


CO 


CO 
CO 


en 

CO 


o 

en 



Figure 1 B: Total Costs of Conflict Cases 
(Municipal and Superior Courts) 





8000000 -| 


/ 


















CO 
00 
























CO 

o 




7000000 - 






















CD 


6000000 - 


















CO 


in 







Q 


















CO 






c 


5000000 - 
















CO 


CO 

cn 




■~ 
















"* 


in 


r^ 




•> 

to 


4000000 - 




Tf 


o 

CM 


CM 

o 


in 

cn 

^ > 
m 


CD 
CO 

m 

o 

CO 


if) 

CO 

m 

CM 


CO 


CO 





U 






3000000 - 




CO 

o 


cn 

o 


CO 


CM 


CM 










** 






o 


















o 




H 


2000000 - 

1000000- 

n - 




*~ 


T— 


T- 






















U ^ ■ 




















CO 


^ 


Hi 


CD 


r*. 


CO 


cn 


o 


T— 




CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


00 


cn 


cn 




CM 


CO 


■<* 


in 


CD 


r-» 


CO 


cn 


o 








CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


cn 



Page 2 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Several factors have contributed to what has been an explosion of conflict costs: 

(1) An increase in fees for conflict cases in 1990. 

(2) The increase and accumulation of dependency cases (parent-child custody cases) which 
routinely involve the representation of several parties; e.g., parents (sometimes separately), and the 
child. By accumulation, we mean that these cases simply do not terminate. They remain on the court 
calendar for years with periodic reviews. 

(3) The rise in the number of felony cases and an accompanying rise in the number of cases 
with multiple defendants. 

(4) An increase in the number of motions to revoke felony probation in the last four years. Last 
year, nearly 2,000 motions were filed. Many involved defendants who had previously been 
represented by conflict attorneys. Faced with revocations of probation, they were entitled to the 
reappointment of conflict attorneys. 

(5) The failure of the courts and court administrators to review conflict attorney bills for 
overpayment. 

With $5.6 million dollar conflict costs, and perhaps as many as 4,000 conflict appointments, the 
San Francisco Superior and Municipal Courts have now become agencies which are major providers 
of legal services. (See Figures 2A and 2B as to the number and costs of conflict cases in the Municipal 
Court, and Figures 3A and 3B with respect to Superior Court numbers and costs.) However, until 
this year, the courts have shown virtually no interest in controlling costs, checking quality, or 
establishing elementary procedures for tracking case-specific data. The court administration of the 
conflict program runs with the simplicity of a child's lemonade stand: the Bar Association provides a 
rotating list, and the court pays the bills. Although individual judges must approve submitted bills, 
there is no uniform centralized review of these bills by the court administration. As a result, there are 
wide disparities and variations in fees for the same types of cases and activities. In some cases, 
lawyers have submitted outlandish bills which have been approved on a rubber stamp basis. One 
attorney, for example, was paid $155,000 for a six-month period representing juvenile dependency 
cases alone. (An average public defender is paid $47,000 a year for the same work.) 

Page 3 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure 2A: Number of Conflict Cases in the Municipal Court 



4000 



a 
« 

CO 

a 
o 



o 

E 

3 

z 



3000 - 



2000 



1000- 




CO 
00 


00 


in 

CO 


CO 

00 


CO 


00 

co 


en 

CO 


o 
en 


en 


C\J 
00 


00 
CO 


CO 


10 

CO 


CO 
CO 


CO 


00 
CO 


en 

CO 


o 

en 



Figure 2B: Conflict Costs in the Municipal Court 



2000000 



Yi 



CO 

l_ 

a 
O 

a 

E 1000000- 

o 
o 




Page 4 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure 3A: Number of Conflict Cases in the Superior Court 



5000 - 



CO 


CO 

CO 

O 



a 

JO 

E 

3 



4000 



3000 




2000 " 



1000 



co 

CO 


00 


IT) 
CO 


CO 
CO 


CO 


CO 
CO 


en 

CO 


o 
en 


en 


CVJ 

00 


co 

CO 


CO 


If) 

00 


(O 

00 


00 


co 

CO 


en 

CO 


o 

en 



Figure 3B: Conflict Costs in the Superior Court 



6000000 



5000000 " 



= 4000000 - 



o 
a 



- 3000000 i 

CO 

CO 

o 2000000 - 



1000000 




CO 
00 


CO 


in 

CO 


CD 
CO 


CO 


CO 
CO 


en 

CO 


o 
en 


en 


eg 

00 


co 

CO 


00 


10 

00 


CO 

00 


1^ 

CO 


00 

00 


en 

00 


o 

O) 



Page 5 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figures 4A and 4B are comparative graphs of the number and costs of conflict cases in the 

Municipal and Superior Courts since FY 82-83: 

Figure 4A: A Comparison of the Number of 



5000 



4000 

n 

m 

CO 

o 

3000 i 
o 



© 

.o 

E 

3 

z 



2000- 



1000" 



Conflict Cases (Muni. Ct. vs. Sup. Ct.) 




Figure 4B: A Comparison of Conflict Costs 
(Muni. Ct. vs. Sup. Ct.) 



0> 

B 

O 
D 



O 

u 



5000000 



4000000 



3000000 " 



2000000 



1000000 




Page 6 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

In the past, officials in the administrative section of the Superior Court have ignored clear 
warnings. For example, in January, 1990, the Public Defender told The Recorder : 

"The Superior Court is going to have to start tracking 
costs. They have an amalgam of payment bills as opposed to 
a detailed breakdown of where costs are coming from. . . . 
It's hard to get reliable information. 

In response, the Superior Court's Assistant Executive Officer, Michael K. Tamony, said: 
"That's [Brown's] perception apparently. . . . From 
what I understand, the information that's been gathered is 
information that is necessary for the court's use. I don't 
know about Mr. Brown's use." 

At that time, conflict costs for the Superior Court were rising 135% over its allocation. 

When pressed this year, the Superior Court was unable to provide information about the 
number of cases, the type of cases, and the costs per case. 4 

In June, 1991, the Board of Supervisors' Finance Committee reserved $750,000 from the 
courts' budgets and asked them to explore: 

1 ) A rollback of fee increases granted to appointed conflict attorneys. 

2) The referral of a portion of the conflict cases to two neighborhood criminal law offices, 
Mission Community Legal Defender (MCLD) and Bay View Hunter's Point Defender (BVHP). This 
suggestion had been urged by the management of the two organizations and would involve a contract 
between the City and the organizations. 



4 Mr. Tamony's responsibilities as Assistant Executive Officer include management of the civil grand jury, 
which is supposed to act as watchdog over the City's departments of government. Perhaps, it is time that the civil 
grand jury focus attention on the sorry state of conflict case records and review. Mr. Tamony may be of some 
assistance to the grand jury in their scrutiny of his department 



Page 7 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

The Committee requested the Public Defender to act as mediator to bring the various parties 
together and agree on a solution. In the weeks since the Finance Committee hearings on June 17 and 
June 25, 1991, the Public Defender made strenuous efforts toward that end The available information 
from the data base in the computer center of the Hall of Justice was tapped. The Public Defender 
sponsored and facilitated a mediational session to explore areas of agreement between lawyers' groups 
and the community offices. Individual sessions between the Public Defender and the participants were 
held. It is the Public Defender's view, as of this writing, that the atmosphere is not ripe for any 
agreement of substance among the parties. 

The Public Defender did not inspect individual billings. The Superior Court was in the process 
of conducting its own review, and it would be difficult to do one simultaneously. However, on the 
basis of the information available, the Public Defender offers these preliminary conclusions: 

1. The Administration of the Appointment and Payment of Conflict Counsel 
Should Be Combined. 

At present, the Bar Association provides lawyers for appointment, and the court pays the bills. 
Between these two entities, there is little interaction. Instead, there is a diffusion of responsibility that 
provides only minimal protections against fee abuse and inadequate representation. That such abuse 
has not occurred in a more notorious way and resulted in major scandal is a tribute to the fine lawyers 
on the panels. 

A combined administration could be structured with specific mandates to review fees for 
uniformity and to review the performance of panel members. Ideally, it should have a governing 
board consisting of judges, lawyers on the appointment panel, and public members. It could plan 
educational sessions for its attorneys and develop time-saving and cost-saving strategies. 

In the view of the Public Defender, the Bar Association of San Francisco is best equipped to do 
this. Its Lawyer Referral Service is managed by a strong staff with a long standing involvement in 
conflict cases. By all accounts, it is committed to excellence in representation of poor people. 

Page 8 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Moreover, it has developed a panel of ethnic diversity and language capability. 

The courts would be prudent in funding a position at the Bar Association for a qualified 
individual who could oversee all payments to compel for their appropriations. 

2. Improve Data About Conflict Cases. 

Information about conflict cases and conflict fees should be combined. It should be placed 
on-line in a data bank, and it should be easily accessible for review by authorized persons. 5 

3. There Should Be A Review of the Fee Schedule. 

Judge Edward Stem, the presiding judge, has expressed some concern about the differential 
paid to attorneys for serious felonies. He believes that certain offenses, classed as serious felonies, do 
not normally involve complex investigation and preparation. The Bar Association has indicated a 
willingness to review the fee structure. Certain types of felonies now regarded as serious felonies 
might be reclassified with considerable savings. 

4. It Is Not Clear That Referring Cases To Community Criminal Law 
Offices Is Desirable. 

The proposal offered by the executive directors of MCLD and BVHP is that 25% of the conflict 
cases be referred to the two offices. The attorneys at BVHP have expressed their disagreement and 
have threatened to resign if such a program is put in place. 

The proponents of this plan offer these arguments: 

(a) These offices are located in areas where large numbers of indigents live and the offices have 
a long history of working with minorities and poor people. 

(b) These offices can offer representation on a cost-savings basis. 



5 It should be noted that, at the request of current Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Edward Stern, and 
with the expertise of recently appointed Budget and Administrative Services Manager, Kate Harrison, the Superior 
Court is finally, itself, bringing conflict data tracking into the twentieth century. A computer has been installed and 
programmed to track attorney, case, and billing information. 

Page 9 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

It is true that both offices are located in the heart of an area where many conflict defendants 
live, it is also true that they have a long history of representation of poor people in the courts. 

However, these offices were established as neighborhood offices to serve a specific 
population-those living in their areas. The founding notion was that the indigent accused would 
feel more comfortable going to an office near their homes and staffed by attorneys sensitive to their 
concerns. In recent years, the offices have been allowed to represent people outside their 
neighborhood ; nevertheless, they have retained their neighborhood-based character, with BVHP 
serving the Hunter's Point - Bay View area, and MCLD, the Latino population in the Mission. A 
referral of 25% of the conflicts, irrespective of the defendants' residence, will detract from the 
neighborhood quality of these offices. 

A more sensible approach might be to refer indigent conflict defendants who live in the 
vicinity of these offices to those offices. This would maintain the neighborhood character in the 
representation by the offices, while it would provide cost-effective means of providing conflict 
counsel. In analyzing the conflict data, it is indisputable that there are enough conflict defendants in 
the areas served by these offices. 

In fact, there is an acute need for neighborhood offices to provide representation for Latino 
defendants in criminal cases. In three years, the number of Latinos in the criminal courts has grown 
from 15% to 27%.^ Most of these defendants require Spanish interpretation, 7 and many have 
immigration-status problems. Unquestionably, a neighborhood office with Spanish-speaking 
attorneys would be more conducive to a lawyer-client relationship than an office somewhere else. 

Whatever the conceptual advantages offered by a referral of conflict defendants to the 
neighborhood offices, there are serious pragmatic problems that must be overcome. 



6 Court Management System Report No. 4348, dated July 12, 1991 of conflict cases from 7/1/90 to 6/30/91. 

7 Op. C.t. 

Page 10 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

For one thing, in both offices there is a voluntary relationship between lawyer and client, 
rather than an appointed relationship. 8 The clients "walk into" the offices, rather than have a judge 
tell the defendant who the lawyer is. The attorneys from BVHP insist that this is essential to a 
trusting relation. 9 They are supported by most of the former members of the office. And they have 
threatened to resign to uphold it 10 Whether one agrees or disagrees with them, a resignation of all 
attorneys would be disastrous for the office. It may not recover, because it would be difficult, 
under the circumstances, to attract independent-minded attorneys. 

BVHP has highly-dedicated lawyers at present who give each client their best effort. 11 It 
would be tragic if the City lost their services at this crucial time. It would not be worth the savings 
that might accrue from referring conflict cases to them. 

Secondly, although MCLD's staff has not expressed the same reservations about the 
appointment of clients, it is not clear that MCLD has the capability to serve large numbers of 
defendants. Between June 30, 1988, and July 1, 1991, MCLD represented an average of 65 new 
criminal cases in each year. 12 According to MCLD's executive director, Alfredo Rodriguez, they 
would, under their proposal, be assigned 500 cases. 13 It is questionable that MCLD has the staff, 
plant, or resources to do this. Even if the numbers were paired down, say to 100 cases, the present 
staff of lawyers does not appear to have the experience in handling large numbers of felonies, 
especially serious felonies. In the last three years, their work has been primarily with misdemeanor 
cases, whereas a great majority of conflict cases are felonies. 14 And it is felony cases that are the 
largest cost-component of the conflict budget. 



8 See Recorder, July 3, 1991, "Indigent Defender Plan Sparks Debate Over Walk-Ins," p.l. 

9 Op. C.t. 

10 Op. C.t. 

1 1 This is based on the opinions of highly respected public and private attorneys who have watched Jay 
Rorty, Angelo Butler, and Ralph Lane in court. It is also based on an inspection of the print-out from the Court 
Management System of their cases, which contains event information. 

12 Court Management Report, No. 5346, July 25, 1991. 

13 Statements to Finance Committee by Alfredo Rodriguez, June 17, 1991; later embodied in Finance 
Committee motion dated June 25, 1991 by Supervisor Gonzalez. 

14 Court Management Report, No. 5348, July 12, 1991. 

Page 1 1 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

Before the City accepts any proposal from a provider to handle conflicts, there must be a 
clear demonstration of the provider's experience and proficiency in handling large numbers of 
cases. Moreover, the City must insist that as a part of any plan, there will be regular evaluations 
from disinterested professionals about the efficiency and the quality of the delivery of legal services. 

5 . The Court Should Adopt Cost Containment Measures for Dependency 
Cases. 

As Figure 5 shows, dependency cases represent a major part of Superior Court appointment 
costs ($1,627,000, arising from 1,989 billings). These parent-child custody cases remain on the 
calendar for years, because the law requires six-month reviews after an initial disposition is 
reached. 15 They can continue until the child's 18th birthday. 16 Consequently, dependency cases 
are an accumulating caseload, unlike others that begin and close within short, fixed time periods. 

The law also requires that wherever possible, the same attorney represent the child or parent 
throughout the life of the case. 17 The net effect of this is to keep cases where there has been a 
private attorney out of the Public Defender's care. 

The City and the court must undertake imaginative means of capping these rising costs. One 
such way is to contract with particular lawyers now specializing in dependency cases to handle new 
cases and the cases where they are of record for annual retainer. Another might be to contract with 
an agency like Legal Services for Children, an experienced provider in this area, for the 
representation of children in the courts. Finally, some review of rates may be in order to see 
whether attorneys are allowed to charge for largely routine appearances. At a time when there are 
inadequate facilities and resources for abused and neglected children, it is unpardonable that some 
attorneys are grossing huge amounts every year. 

15 Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 366.22(a). 
!6 Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 303. 
17 Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 317 d. 

Page 12 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 



Figure 5: A Breakdown of Superior Court Conflict Costs for FY 90-91. 



CATEGORY 


NUMBER 


TOTAL COST 


AVERAGE BILUNGS 


Adult Criminal Conflicts (1) 


1356 


2253316.14 


1661.74 


Adult Criminal Calendar (2) 


1 


1125 


112.5 


Juvenile Delinquency (3) 


415 


508825.89 


1226 .09 


Juvenile Calendar (4) 


90 


11779 


130.68 


Dependencies (5) 


1989 


1627093.23 


818.05 


Con serve torshi ps 


13 


6586.9 


506.68 


5250s (6) 


Not Available 


596595 


Not Available 



Explanations: 

(1) Includes attorney's fees and non-attorney expenses in capital cases in which conflict is 
declared. Also includes other appointments, e.g., for a contemnor at City Hall in a domestic 
relations case. 

(2) Amounts paid to counsel who appear because it is "their day" but who do not receive an 
appointment. 

( 3 ) Called the " 1 00" series because petition numbers begin with the number " 1 ". 

(4) Same as (2) above. 

(5) Called the "500" series. 

(6) There is also a sum of $59,659.50 paid for the "5250" cases called respondents. However, 
each bill covers a number of appointments so a breakdown of costs is not possible. 



Page 13 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

6. It Is Premature to Embark On A Second Public Defender. 

In analyzing the data about conflict cases, the inevitable question arises: Should the City and 
County of San Francisco establish a second Public Defender Office for conflict cases? After all, 
public defender costs are several times less than private appointed counsel. By all accounts, Public 
Defender Offices provide supervision of the quality of work of their attorneys, as well as an 
efficient delivery of services. Moreover, there has been successful models of second Public 
Defender Offices for conflict cases in Los Angeles and San Diego. However, there are several 
countervailing considerations: 

1) Public Defender Offices are almost universally under-budgeted and overworked. 
Although they are led by conscientious and dedicated people, county boards of supervisors are 
notoriously stingy in providing them resources. In most real sense, Public Defender Offices are 
fixed costs contracts: for a certain dollar amount, they are expected to handle all no-conflict cases. 
Thus, if a second Public Defender is established, are there to be limits on the number of cases they 
handle? If that is to be the case, what will prevent the first Public Defender from asking for more 
staff or limits on his caseload? If that is not to be the case, what protections exist against inadequate 
representation? 

2) Is the major part of indigent representation to repose in governmental agencies? A second 
Public Defender would probably mean that 90% of indigents would be represented by a 
county-employed attorney. The private bar would virtually disappear in the representation of poor 
defendants, and consequently, their presence in the criminal courts would become marginal at best. 
With the disappearance of the private bar, there would be a loss of diversity of approaches and 
ideas. The representation of criminal defense very much needs the perspective of people outside of 
governmental agencies and somewhat away from the every day flow of the courtroom. Although 
that value is impossible to quantify, it is, nonetheless, an indispensable protection of the rights of 
the accused at a time that the criminal justice system is operating like a lifeless machine. 



Page 14 



Office of the Public Defender - Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 

3) A second Public Defender will not address the special needs of communities with a high 
incidence of defendants. For instance, there has been a sharp increase in the number of cases in the 
Mission among Spanish-speaking defendants. These defendants would be more comfortable going 
to a neighborhood office. Similarly, the Hunters Point - Bay View area has large numbers of 
residents with cases. They, too, need neighborhood offices, with services geared to their unique 
needs. A second Public Defender, even with a representative number of minority and bilingual 
attorneys, is a poor substitute for a community office. 

Conclusion 

The problem of designing a cost— and quality— effective model for the delivery of legal 
services for indigent defendants is upon us. The City and County of San Francisco finally appears 
willing to find alternatives to its badly neglected and expensive conflict appointment process. 18 In 
its search for answers, the City would be best advised to seek the guidance of disinterested experts 
like ABT Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or The Spangenberg Association in Newton, 
Massachusetts, that long studied conflict defendant models. Their services are usually available for 
about $100,000, but considering what the City is expending and wasting, such an expenditure 
would be a prudent investment. 



18 This Annual Report should give some indication of the enormous burdens attorneys in the Public 
Defender's Office are under. Felony caseloads are as high as 250 cases - 150 is the recommended maximum by the 
National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, Standards for Defender Services 4.1 . For a description of the poverty of 
defender offices generally, see Lefstein Criminal Defense Services for the Poor . A.B.A., May, 1982. 

Page 15 



Office of the Public Defender 



P65 
# I 



C7- 



City and County of San Francisco, CA 



DOP.i imcmts DEPT 
MAR 1 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




Report 







Peter G.Keane 
Chief Attorney 



Jeff Brown 
Public Defender 



?£>,? 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION TO THE 1991-1992 ANNUAL REPORT 1 

I. PUBLIC DEFENDER'S MISSION 2 

II. OFFICE JURISDICTION 4 

III. OFFICE STRUCTURE 5 

IV. OFFICE STAFF 6 

V. BUDGET AND PROGRAM COSTS 7 

BUDGET 7 

PROGRAM COSTS 8 

VI. DEPARTMENTAL UNITS 9 

A) FELONY UNIT 9 

B) MISDEMEANOR UNIT 18 

C) JUVENILE UNIT 22 

D) MENTAL HEALTH UNIT 2 9 

E) INVESTIGATIVE UNIT 34 

F) ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT 34 

G) RESEARCH UNIT 35 

VII. TRAINING 37 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



INTRODUCTION TO THE 1991-1992 ANNUAL REPORT 

The Annual Report is a comprehensive description of the work of the San Francisco Public 
Defender's Office. It is a statement of the office's jurisdiction, mission and programs, as well as a 
record of its budget and program costs. Tables and graphs have been utilized throughout the report 
to highlight current statistical trends in the caseload of the office and the court system. 

The Public Defender's Office represents people charged with crimes who lack the funds to 
hire private attorneys. More than twenty thousand such people are represented each year. To carry 
out this enormous task and responsibility, the office has a staff of sixty nine attorneys and thirty 
seven support personnel. 

The Public Defender must ensure that each and every client is fully and competently 
represented by the deputy public defenders. This requires that each client be provided with a 
defense that works to his/her maximum legal advantage, regardless of the gravity of the charges or 
the weight of the evidence. It also demands the highest professional and ethical conduct on the part 
of each member of the office. 

At the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, the task, indeed the duty, of every 
employee, whether department supervisor or telephone operator, is to do everything legally and 
ethically possible to further each client's cause. Thus we hope that, throughout this detailed report, 
the reader keeps in mind the principal concern of this office of city government: that every client 
receive the highest quality of representation. 

The San Francisco Public Defender is one of the few elected Public Defenders in the 
country. As an elected official, the Public Defender is accountable to the public in terms of the 
quality of his administration. This Annual Report is presented to the public pursuant to that 
responsibility. 



Page 1 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

I. PUBLIC DEFENDER'S MISSION 

As the Chief Executive Officer, the Public Defender is ultimately responsible for the 
operational management of the office. He must clearly define the duties and goals of the office and 
see to it that they are carried out. The Public Defender must also develop, implement and evaluate 
office policies and procedures and he must provide overall leadership at all times. 

As previously mentioned, the Public Defender's primary duty and loyalty is owed to the 
clients. He must ensure that each and every client receive the fullest and most competent 
representation by the deputy public defenders. This is not an easy task since Public Defender 
Offices are somewhat of an anomaly within the criminal justice system. On one hand, their 
attorneys must give the same undivided loyalty to the interests of their clients which any attorney 
would provide. On the other hand, these offices are usually governmental entities and the 
attorneys receive their pay from the government. This anomalous role can be a major source of 
problems for deputy public defenders. Aggressive deputy public defenders who place their clients' 
interests above all else may find themselves at odds with the court system. However, they must be 
strong-willed and independent enough to stand up to pressure, and they should not sacrifice the 
clients' interests for the sake of judicial "case-processing". This does not, by any means, imply 
that deputy public defenders must needlessly be intransigent or quarrelsome, but it does mean that 
the deputy public defenders are lawyers first and foremost. 

In safeguarding the constitutional rights of the clients, the Public Defender faces and 
grapples with the state of the budget each fiscal year. He must develop the office budget and lobby 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in order to have the budget approved. Thereafter, the 
Public Defender must manage the office's program costs and supervise the expenditure of money 
and the use of resources in order to ensure that the delivery of legal services is as economical as 
possible without sacrificing the quality of those services. 



Page 2 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

As an elected official, the Public Defender must also educate the public at large about the 
function of the defense attorney in the criminal justice system. A large amount of the Public 
Defender's time is spent answering inquiries about critical issues which are subjects of passionate 
debate. The public defender must have the courage to enter such debates and provide an informed 
view, no matter how unpopular that view may be. 

Thus, the Public Defender has a duty to be more than a passive player within the criminal 
justice system. He must articulate his concerns about the overall quality of justice in the criminal 
justice system, and he has the responsibility to speak up when injustices occur. As such, the 
Public Defender is the leader of public opinion, and he must constantly strive to maintain public 
respect for the office and the criminal justice system. 



Page 3 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

II. OFFICE JURISDICTION 

The Public Defender's Office is created by the Charter of the City and County of San 
Francisco. Section 33 of the Charter provides that the Public Defender shall represent persons 
charged with criminal offenses who lack the funds to hire private attorneys. 

In addition to this specific grant of power by the Charter, Section 27706 of the California 
Government Code sets forth the types of cases which can be handled by a County Public Defender. 
They are as follows: 

1) Criminal cases upon request of the defendant or appointment by the court 

2) Contempt cases 

3) Appeals 

4) Actions for the collection of wages or other demands against a person for under $100 

5) Defense of individuals in civil litigation where a person is being harassed or persecuted 

6) Cases involving mental health guardianships and conservatorships 

7) Juvenile cases 

The jurisdiction of the office is further defined by the California Welfare and Institutions 
Code. Sections 634 and 317 provide for the appointment of deputy public defenders when the 
parental custody rights of indigent parents are being subjected to suspension or termination 
proceedings. 



Page 4 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

III. OFFICE STRUCTURE 

The Public Defender is the Executive Officer of the Public Defender's Office. The Public 
Defender is elected every four years and appoints all deputy public defenders. These employees 
serve at the pleasure of the Public Defender. The balance of the staff-investigators, secretaries and 
other support personnel-are selected through the Civil Service rules. 

As the second Executive Officer of the department, the Chief attorney assists the Public 
Defender in the development of policies and procedures. Moreover, the Chief Attorney is the 
person to whom all unit supervisors report. Hence, the Chief Attorney is the link between policy 
making and the line work of the office. The Chief Attorney is the Acting Public Defender should 
the former leave the state. 

In any given year, the office represents over 20,000 people. In order to provide competent 
representation to this large group of clients, sixty nine attorneys and thirty seven support personnel 
are assigned to seven units within the office The following illustrates the Public Defender's Office 
Structure: 



1) Felony Unit: 

2 ) Misdemeanor Unit: 

3 ) Juvenile Unit: 

4) Mental Health Unit: 

5 ) Investigative Unit: 

6) Research Unit: 

7) Administrative Unit: 



35 attorneys in both the Municipal and Superior 

Courts 

17 attorneys in 7 Municipal Courts 

10 attorneys, 1 investigator, 3 social workers, 

3 clerical-secretarial personnel 

2 attorneys, 2 investigators 

1 principal attorney as supervisor, 10 investigators, 3 clerks 

2 attorneys and 1 paralegal 

1 executive assistant, 1 accounts coordinator 
15 clerical personnel 



Page 5 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

IV. OFFICE STAFF 
Attorney Diversity 

The Public Defender's Office represents a great number of individuals from various ethnic 
and minority backgrounds. The presence of attorneys from similar ethnic, social and economic 
backgrounds strengthens the attorney-client relationship by developing a higher level of trust. 
Furthermore, such presence is a statement of the office's strong commitment to equal opportunity. 

The San Francisco Public Defender takes pride in the quality and diversity of the sixty nine 
deputy public defenders employed at the office. At the present time, 41.8% of the attorneys are of 
minority ethnic groups and 46.3% are women. Additionally, the office has a substantial presence 
of Gay and Lesbian attorneys. 
Volunteer Attorneys: 

For over a decade, the office has benefited from the volunteer participation of such law 
firms as Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro and Morrison and Foerster. Recently, the volunteer staff has 
been joined by members of the law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe. For stints up to 
six months, an attorney from these prestigious firms works at the Public Defender's Office 
handling misdemeanor and felony cases. In fiscal year 91-92 attorneys volunteered their services 
at the office. The outstanding quality of work performed by these attorneys surely reflects the 
excellence and public spirit of their firms and themselves individually. 

The Public Defender's Office owes a great vote of thanks to these fine lawyers and their 

respective firms: 

Kim Zeldin Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Suzanne Janissen Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Claudia Dickman Solo Practitioner 

Marte Bassi Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Jennifer Small Morrison & Foerster 

Terry Corbin Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Gordon Renneisen Heller, Ehrman, etal. 

Miguel Neri Banchero & Lasater 

Janice Sperow Morrison & Foerster 

Pat Loretz Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Page 6 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

V. BUDGET AND PROGRAM COSTS 

Budget: 

The following graph illustrates the Public Defender's Office Budgets since fiscal year 1987- 
88. The approved budget for the 92-93 fiscal year has also been included. As indicated, the office 
budget has decreased— from the previous year's budget-twice in the past six years. 



92-93 



91-92 



90-91 



89-90 



88-89 



87-88 



Public Defender's Budgets Since FY 87-88 



8550913 



8307023 



8321160 



7734074 



7076428 



7141891 



100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 
000000000 



Page 7 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Program Costs: 

The following table illustrates the program costs of the office for fiscal year 91-92. The 
costs are represented by the salary and fringe costs of the personnel; the operational costs of the 
office are not included. 

Administration, Support and Clerical $888,996 

Felony Representations $3,061,538 

Misdemeanor Representations $1,094,488 

Mental Health $339,870 

Juvenile $1,119,527 

Juvenile Delinquency $769,114 

Juvenile Dependency $350,413 

Research $253,490 

Investigation $821,946 

TOTAL: $7,579,855 



Page 8 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

VI. DEPARTMENTAL UNITS 

A) FELONY UNIT: 
Procedural Background: 

After an arrest, the District Attorney may file a criminal complaint in the Municipal Court. 
Once the defendant appears on the complaint, the court will appoint the Public Defender to the case 
if the client is indigent. If there is a conflict of interest, however, the court will appoint a private 
attorney. 

There are several possible dispositions of felony cases in the Municipal Court. A client may 
plead guilty to a felony or misdemeanor charge, the case may be dismissed or the client may be 
required to participate in a drug diversion program. 

If a preliminary hearing is held, however, and the court determines that there is enough 
evidence to hold the defendant for trial, the case will be transferred to the Superior Court and 
placed on the trial calendar after a plea of not guilty. The case will then end up in a negotiated plea, 
some other disposition or a jury trial. 
Motions to Revoke Probation 

In the last few years, a major part of the felony unit's workload has been representing 
clients in "Motions to Revoke Probation." These motions arise against individuals who have 
previously sentenced and placed on probation. If they break the law or fail to comply with some 
condition of their probation, the District Attorney's Office or the Probation Department can bring a 
motion to revoke probation on the bases of the new charge or violation. 

Until 1987, these motions represented a distinct minority of cases in the Superior Court. 
They have become, however, the majority of the unadjudicated cases in the Superior Court. In 91- 
92, the felony unit handled 1,655 motions to revoke in the Superior Court. This increase is due 
to the fact that the District Attorney can secure the client's imprisonment without a preliminary 
hearing and a jury trial. 



Page 9 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



Fiscal Year Comparisons: Statistical Data and Trends 

Figure A(l) illustrates the upward trend in the number of cases handled by the felony unit. 

In fiscal year 1990-1991, the unit handled 6,700 cases. The number of cases for the 1991-1992 

fiscal year jumped to 7,532. 

Figure A(1): Public Defender Felony Caseload 



8000n 


















































] r=^F 






i 




7000- 
6000- 
5000- 


f- 


7^ 




























— — t— 

>—— — 
=f= 


4000- 






























i — 




=4= 

U- 




3000- 
































, 
























I 


1— 
























2000- 


















=4= 


=4= 






























=4= 




— i-h 
























, 


1000- 








I I — 




























I 












1 








| 














































I 






1 






















































































—7 


P-7 




~y 




"7 




— ' 


\-i 


o- 


A 




t 


I 




/ 


I 




V 


I 




? 


I 




> 


I 


\/ 


( 



90-91 



91-92 



Page 10 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Figure A (2) is a detailed breakdown of the felony unit's caseload since FY 87-88: 
Figure A(2): Public Defender Felony Caseload 

87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 



Superior Court 


2,114 


5,345 


4,654 


4,481 


4,591 


Municipal Court 


5,660 


5.634 


5.447 


5,077 


6.312 


Sub-total 


7,774 


10,979 


10,101 


9,558 


10,903 



Less cases held to 

answer or certified 2.041 4.277 3.167 2.858 3.371 

TOTAL: 5,733 6,702 6,934 6,700 7,532 



Page 11 



! 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Figure A(3) is a comparative breakdown of Public Defender felony cases with respect to 
the number of arraignments, cases held to answer and certified pleas since fiscal year 82-83. 
During the last fiscal year, there wer e 6,312 arraignments; 1.290 c ases held to answer; and 2,081 
certified pleas. Figure A(3): New Public Defender Felony Cases 



7000 



6000 



5000 



4000 



3000 



2000 



1000 




Arraigned 



Held to Answer 



Certified Pleas 



Page 12 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



Figure A(4) illustrates the average number of Public Defender trial cases pending in the 
Figure A(4): Average Number of Public Defender 
Trial Cases Pending in Superior Court 

"201 .73 



Superior Court. 
1991 
1990 
1989 
1988 
1987 
1986 
1985 
1984 
1983 



189.95 



I ■ ■■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■ in i i i i iim 

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i i ■ i i i in i i i i i i i i i i l i i i l l l l l l l 



226.05 



ii iini i iii i)21 8.53 



■ ■■ ■ " 



i i i i i i i i i i i i I i n 



i iiiii iiii iiiii ii i i i iii i i169.91 



■ 213.17 



= 195.47 
*195.76 



'■■ ifnniinii'171 . 27 



Jury Trial q 50 100 150 200 250 

The jury trial represents the most fundamental protection in our system of laws against 

unjust punishment. The jury trial prevents oppressive and arbitrary state action by requiring the 

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 

During fiscal year 91-92 the unit handled a total of seventy six trials-a slight increase from 

the previous fiscal year's total of sixty nine trials. 



91-92 


Figure A 


(5): Number 


of Felony J 


ury Trials 






90-91 














89-90 












88-89 














I I I I I 



20 



40 



60 



80 



100 



Page 13 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Figure A(6) indicates the total number of felony cases— Public Defender and non-Public 
Defender cases— in the Municipal and Superior Courts since fiscal year 87-88: 

Figure A(6): All Felony Cases—Municipal and Superior Courts 





87-88 


88-89 


89-90 


90-91 


91-92 


Arraignments- 
Muni.Court* 


8,806 


7,670 


7,042 


6,480 


8,751 


Informations- 
Sup. Court** 


1,772 


1,812 


1,907 


1,546 


1,870 


Certified Pleas- 
Muni. Court* 


2,564 


3,449 


2,806 


2,906 


3,318 



* (Source: Municipal Court Judicial Council Statistics) 
** (Source: Clerk, Superior Court) 



Page 14 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



Figure A(7) shows the number of persons received at state prisons from San Francisco. 

Figure A(8) indicates the number of statewide commitments to state prisons. Both figures illustrate 

the same trend in the number of commitments to the State's prison facilities: 

Figure A(7): # of Commitments to State Prisons - 

San Francisco Courts 



1600 



1400 



1200 



1000 



800 



600 



400 



200 




i i ~ i ~~ i i i i i i i i r 

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 



Page 15 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



Figure A(8): Number of Commitments to State 
Prison - Statewide 



40000- 










35000- 








30000- 




















25000- 












































20000- 
























15000- 
10000- 




















5000- 

o- 




i 


I 


_ffi^ 




I 




I 


5^j 


I 




I 


I 


H" 


I 


I 





1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 



Page 16 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Figure A(9) shows the number of state prison cases in San Francisco and California 
between 1979 and 1991. 

It must be noted that there are statistical differences between the data used in Figures A(7) 
and A(8) and those used in Figure (9). These differences reflect a different selection criterion and 
counting methods. However, the three figures evidence similar trends. 

Figure A(9): Cases Where There Is A State Prison Commitment 



Year 


San Francisco 


% Total Sentences 


California 


% Total Sentences 


1979 


517 




29.3 


8,878 


25.3 


1980 


467 




23.3 


10,311 


26.5 


1981 


795 




31.7 


13,971 


30.4 


1982 


759 




33.7 


25,122 


32.5 


1983 


756 




31.5 


16,677 


34.7 


1984 


841 




33.2 


18,094 


34.6 


1985 


938 




34.7 


21,421 


33.7 


1986 


858 




31.4 


24,210 


34.6 


1987 


883 




29.9 


25,029 


34.5 


1988 


921 




22.2 


25,887 


33.2 


1989 


1,180 




26.2 


29,089 


33.5 


1990 


1,239 




32.5 


32,265 


35.1 


1991 


1,211 




31.1 


37,288 


35.1 


(Source: 


Adult Felony 


Dispositions 


- Department 


of Justice) 





Page 17 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

B) MISDEMEANOR UNIT: 

The representation of misdemeanor cases-those cases which carry a penalty of a year or 
less in the county jail— is conducted in six trial departments and one law and motion department of 
the Municipal Court. 

The misdemeanor unit deals with a wide variety of offenses ranging from public 
intoxication to burglary and aggravated assault. The largest single category of misdemeanor cases, 
however, is driving under the influence of alcohol. 

Misdemeanor cases are disposed of by pleas of guilty, dismissals, verdicts after trial and 
diversion. Diversion involves a referral of the case to the probation department or a diversion 
program, without a plea, on the condition that the defendant comply with certain requirements over 
a period of time. If the requirements are met and there are no subsequent charges, the initial 
charges will be dismissed. 

Fiscal year Comparisons: Statistical Data and Trends 

Figure B(l) indicates the number of new Public Defender misdemeanor cases since fiscal 
year 84-85. 

Figure B(2) shows the total number of misdemeanor cases— Public Defender and non- 
Public Defender cases~in the municipal Court since fiscal year 84-85. The graph is drawn from the 
court's own records. 



Page 18 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



Figure B(1): New Public Defender Misdemeanor 

Cases 



10000 



9000 



8000 



7000 



6000 



5000 



4000 



3000 



2000 



1000 



r 

84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 



Page 19 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



Figure B(2): Number of All New Misdemeanors 



16000 



14000- 



12000 



10000 



8000 



6000 



4000-B 



2000 








■■■■■■■ri^^l^H! 

;■I■^x<■XwX•>^^^^^x■x■;■x^■^^x^■x■x■x■x■;■^^^x■x^■^^^I■x■^"•x■x•x•x■^x 

iV.V«%VAS%V..VAV.VAV>V.V.V.V.VV.V.VA%92Jn 

'X-xcx-x-i^vXwXvXvwX-x-i-x-x-x-XrX-x-XrX-x-X:^ 



.va%%%s%V"V.vv.t.%»%%%»»%s%»v*v.5%m 



•v.v-Vw v«v«v.v.". , .v.v.v.v«:»v.v.v.v.VAv.v.v«v«vd , A 



wMmimmmmmmmmwMwmiwmmmi 









w^^^S^S^^^&^S^'l^^^^^^^'W'&S^^'W^s 



x^^x^m^^SSSSS^Wx^gx^^^?^?^^^^^^-^ 
:vX-x : x-:-:wX-x-x-x-x-x<-:-:-x-:>?^^^»xwx^^^^x^^^^^^^^^x^^»^^^^^^^^^ 



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^■>>X>X->X-C->^»»X>X4>>X>»X-»»«^^^^^^^^^^ 



X-X-X-X-X-X-W. 

ShhkXhhshhs 



84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 



Page 20 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Figure B(3) breaks down the Misdemeanor Unit's caseload for fiscal year 90-91 and 91-92: 
Figure B(3): Public Defender Misdemeanor Caseload 

New Misdemeanor cases 8,321 

Motions to Revoke 1,357 

TOTAL 9.678 

The jury trial also plays a crucial role in the disposition of misdemeanor cases. In FY 90- 
91, the misdemeanor unit handled 101 jury trials. In the 91-92 fiscal year, this figure increased to 
146 iurv trials. 

Figure B(4): Number of Misdemeanor Jury Trials 




89-90 



90-91 



91-92 



92-93 



Page 21 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

C) JUVENILE UNIT: 

The Public defender's Office represents juvenile clients in the juvenile court at the Youth 
Guidance Center. Representation of juveniles involves defending them against charges which 
would constitute crimes if committed by adults. Juveniles can also be charged with non-criminal 
behavior such as truancy and ungovernibility. In such cases, the deputy public defenders represent 
the minors in "status offense" proceedings which are brought pursuant to Section 601 of the 
Welfare and Institutions Code. 

With the exception of a two year gap between 8/88 to 8/90, the unit has also been involved 
in the representation of indigent parents of juveniles in dependency cases. These proceedings are 
initiated by the Department of Social Services to suspend or terminate the parents' custody rights 
over their children. (The two year gap was due to the loss of three positions from the 88-89 fiscal 
year budget. The situation was remedied when the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors placed 
additional money in the budget on 8/4/90.) 

Representation of juveniles is a delicate and complex matter. Juvenile court proceedings are 
adversarial proceedings which require the utmost from unit attorneys. The attorneys must not only 
use their talents to present factual and legal defenses for their young clients, but they should also be 
sensitive to the special problems facing the youthful offenders. Thus, unit attorneys must be able 
to identify emotional and educational difficulties of their clients in order to explore alternative forms 
of treatment outside the legal system. In doing so, it is imperative that they fully utilize all of the 
community-based agencies which provide social or psychiatric assistance. 



Page 22 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Fiscal Year Comparisons: Statistical Data and Trends 

The following tables and graphs indicate the statistical changes and trends in the juvenile 
justice system. Figure C(l) shows the number of juvenile cases handled by the unit during the 91- 
92 fiscal year. 

Figure C(2) shows the trend in the juvenile unit's caseload since the 78-79 fiscal year. 



Figure C(1): Public Defender Juvenile Caseload in FY 

91-92 



Section 601 



Section 300 



Section 707 




Section 602 



Page 23 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



Figure C(2): Public Defender Juvenile Caseload since FY 78-79 



Year 


Section 601 


Section 602 


Section 707 


Section 300 


Total 


78-79 


127 


2,119 


N/A 


225 


2,471 


79-80 


141 


1,410 


19 


325 


1,895 


80-81 


145 


2,118 


15 


197 


2,475 


81-82 


130 


2,470 


12 


202 


2,814 


82-83 


89 


2,217 


8 


320 


2,634 


83-84 


30 


2,181 





N/A 


2,211 


84-85 


66 


1,944 


5 


522 


2,537 


85-86 


N/A 


1,927 


2 


869 


2,798 


86-87 


N/A 


2,054 


1 


825 


2,880 


87-88 


N/A 


2,501 


2 


806 


3,309 


88-89 


N/A 


2,415 


4 


N/A 


2,419 


89-90 


16 


2,130 


11 


N/A 


2,157 


90-91 


14 


1,330 


5 


358* 


1,707 


91-92 


13 


1,322 


3 


414 


1752 



*NOTE: In FY 90-91, dependency representation by the Public Defender's Office did 

not commence until 8/90. Thus, Figure C(l) reflects the number of these 
Section 300 cases for only 3 quarters of the fiscal year. 



Page 24 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Figures C(3) and C(4) indicate the trend in the number of commitments to the California 
Youth Authority and the Log Cabin. 

Although the CYA is often cited as a model facility, it has a recidivism rate of 65%. This 
occurs despite the best efforts of top correctional personnel including social workers and 
psychologists. 

The San Francisco Probation Department has reported that the number of commitments by 
the juvenile court to the California Youth Authority has fallen to a ten year low. Although law and 
order advocates may view this with alarm, many other professionals in the system consider this 
trend as a preferred use of community-based alternatives by the court. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's Office has a social worker who has been instrumental 
in reducing the incarceration of our youthful clients in both the Log Cabin and the CYA. In fiscal 
year 91-92, 5 juvenile clients were committed to the CYA and 52 juveniles were sent to the Log 
Cabin. 



Page 25 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 19911992 



Figure C(3): Commitments to CYA 

Cases 



Public Defender 







oo 
1^ 



o 

? » CM 

oo TT ~. . oo <o 

00 ^ ^ 

tj- i oo oo 

oo io ■ oo 

OO CD ■ 

OO I s * 

oo 



® W m 

00 W 

00 



o> 








oo 


o 






1 


OJ 


T- 




CO 


1 


05 


CM 


CO 


CO 


1 


Cft 




00 


o 


1 






Oi 


CO 



Number of Commitments 



Figure C(4): Commitments to Log Cabin - Pubic 

Defender Cases 



140 
120 
100 




o 

00 






CM 
00 



o 

00 



CO 

oo 

CM 

CO 



"* 














00 

1 


IO 

co 


oo 










CO 
CO 


00 


CO 

in 

CO 


CO 

CO 
00 


CO 

oo 

CO 


00 

1 

00 


o 

o> 



CO 



00 



a> 



CM 

o ■ 

<j> t- 



Page 26 



1 






OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Figure C(5) illustrates the Active Juvenile Probation Caseload since 1972. As indicated, 
the caseload in the 1970's was much higher than the number of cases in recent years. In 1974, for 
instance, there were 2004 active probation cases, whereas there were only 1,068 cases in 1992. 

Figure C(5): Active Juvenile Probation 



2500 



2000 



1500 



1000 



500 




°> £ £. »° 

t- °> o> h- ■ CO 

*- ™ co £• £ oi 

^ r- °> £ r^ 



"- °> w eo CO 

~ - ; S S s co 

- « S g £ co 

- 2 s S S o 

~ - °> 2? S CM 



i- o> 



CD CO 
•i- CO 



Page 27 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



Figure C(6) shows the total number of juvenile filings since 1978. 



1992 
1990 
1988 
1986 
1984 
1982 
1980 
1978 



Figure C(6): Juvenile Court Filings 



1769 



1007 
■ 1026 



I988 
1998 



■■■■■1533 
1278 



1128 

■IMIM1388 



1178 

■■■■■1426 



1 , 467 



Page 28 



1974 



500 1000 1500 2000 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

D) MENTAL HEALTH UNIT: 

The attorneys at the Mental Health Unit are the principal attorneys for the mentally ill 
population of our community. Most of the unit's work involves representation of clients in 
conservatorship petitions. Under Section 5500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, this petition 
is used to establish judicial control over a client who is alleged to be a danger to himself or others, 
or is gravely disabled to the extent that he lacks the ability to provide the basic necessities of life for 
himself. 

In these cases, the client may be placed in a state hospital or a local facility if the petition is 
granted. Thus, the attorneys must review the medical reports and other evidence in order to 
explore better suited alternatives for the client. 

The unit is also involved in the representation of mentally ill clients who have already been 
placed at a state hospital pursuant to the provisions of the Penal Code and the W &I Code. These 
clients must be regularly visited and interviewed so that their progress and status could be 
examined and updated. For instance, if the state hospital makes an inappropriate recommendation 
for a client, the attorney in charge of the case must bring that fact to the attention of the court, and if 
it becomes necessary, a jury trial may be required to determine whether the client should remain at 
the hospital. 

In the 91-92 fiscal year, the unit continued its involvement in four other types of medical 
hearings. They are as follows: 

1) Probate Code Section 3200 : Healings under this code involve ex part orders for 
invasive medical procedures with respect to hospital patients who are critically ill and temporarily 
incompetent due to severe illness. These patients have no family or fiduciary capable of giving 
consent, but they are in such imminently life threatening conditions that procedures can be initiated 
on emergency basis. This determination is made on the basis of mental competence and medical 
necessity. When there is doubt, a second opinion is usually requested from both a psychiatrist and 



Page 29 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

a medical specialist in the relative field. The unit considers these requests to be urgent. They are 
usually acted upon within 48 hours. 

2) Medical Consent Hearings : By case law, conservatees have a right to refuse invasive 
medical treatment. In cases where invasive treatment is needed and the conservatee is allegedly 
incompetent, the court must make a determination, bases on mental competence as well as medical 
necessity, whether the conservator may be authorized to consent to the treatment. These are 
priority requests and are usually resolved on the first available court date. The conservatee is 
usually seen within 48 hours of the request. 

3) Riese Hearings: In 1989, the California Supreme Court decision in Riese v. St. Mary's 
Hospital went into effect. This decision required a determination of competence on the right to 
refuse psychotropic medication. The only issue to be determined in this area is the individual's 
mental competence to make the decision, not the propriety of the treatment. 

4) Routine Medical Determinations: Effective January, 1991, the legislature mandated that 
all orders appointing a conservator pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short include a finding as to 
whether the conservatee is capable of giving consent to routine, non-invasive medical treatment 
and/or examinations, a subject not previously covered by the act. The district attorney made no 
attempt to enforce this order until May, 1991. Subsequently, the unit has reviewed the medical 
records of all clients, and the attorneys have been successful in preserving the rights of the clients 
to consent to medical treatment in 87% of the cases. The unit has insisted that when a request to 
deny this right to a client is made, the need for such a request must be adequately documented. If 
there is any doubt, the matter is brought to hearing so that a determination of competence can be 
judicially made. 



Page 30 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

Figure D(l): Caseload - Mental Health Unit 

14-DAY CERTIFICATIONS (PROBABLE CAUSE HEARINGS) 1580 

RIESE HEARINGS (MEDICATION COMPETENCY HEARINGS) 142 

Found incompetent 68 

Found competent 21 

Petition withdrawn/settled 35 

No probable cause for 5250/moot 18 

WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS 197 

Granted 39 

Denied 58 

Withdrawn (discharged) 31 

Withdrawn 69 

NEW CONSERVATORSHIPS 735 

Granted 349 

Denied 386 

Total appearances 820 

CONSERVATORSHIP RENEWALS 626 

Granted 510 

Denied 116 

Total Appearances 750 

CONSERVATORSHIP TERMINATIONS 23 



Page 31 



1 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER ■ ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

REHEARINGS 45 

Released 9 

Held 21 

Withdrawn 15 

MEDICAL CONSENTS 51 

Granted 36 

Denied 15 

Total Appearances 93 

ELECTROSHOCK HEARINGS 5 

Granted 1 

Denied 1 

Withdrawn 3 

HEARINGS TO CHANGE CONSERVATORS 13 

PLACEMENT HEARINGS 22 

Placement change ordered 11 

Placement change denied 5 

Withdrawn 6 

PROGRESS AND PLACEMENT REPORTS 118 

CAPACITY TO CONSENT FOR ROUTINE MEDICAL CARE 766 

Conservatee retained right 673 

Conservatee found incompetent 93 

PROBATE CODE SECTION 3200 CASES 16 

WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 6500 CASES 6 



Page 32 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

PENAL CODE SECTION 1026.5 (b) (EXTENSION) 13 

Granted 7 

No decision 2 

Pending 4 

PENAL CODE SECTION 1026.2(e) (CONDITIONAL RELEASE) 15 

Granted 1 

Denied 1 

Withdrawn 12 

Pending 1 

PENAL CODE SECTION 1026.2 (RESTORATION OF SANITY) 5 

Granted 3 

Withdrawn 1 

Pending 1 

PENAL CODE SECTION 1600 (CONDITIONAL RELEASE/OUT-PATIENT PAROLE)_ 44 

Section 1603-04 5 

Section 1606 25 

Section 1608 14 

Misc 2 

CONDITIONAL LEAVE 7 



Page 33 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

E) Investigative Unit: 

Solid investigation is absolutely essential to effective representation. It can literally win the case by 
discovering facts that contradict the prosecutor's case, or by providing evidence which prove the 
innocence of the client. 

The investigative process begins when an attorney makes a written request to the unit. An 
investigator may be asked to locate and interview witnesses, locate documents and photograph 
crime scenes. To ensure timely and effective investigation, a suspense date is set for the 
completion of the investigation, and the entire investigation is conducted by the same investigator. 

G) Administrative Unit 

The Administrative Unit is managed by the Executive Assistant. The unit consists of 
reception area personnel, accountants, legal process clerks, senior legal process clerks and word 
processing secretaries and clerk typists. In addition to providing fiscal management for the office, 
the unit also provides clerical and secretarial services , as well as data collection and statistical 
analysis. 

The importance of the administrative unit can not be overlooked or underestimated. The 
work of these support personnel is critical to the operation of the Public Defender's Office. In their 
absence, the deputy public defenders could not effectively function. 

Furthermore, the unit is a major link of the office to the public at large. Thus, the unit 
plays a critical role in the office's public relations. When phone calls are properly answered and 
the public is treated with courtesy, the office is viewed as a resource as opposed to just another 
bureaucracy. Public respect for the office generates good morale and good morale equals high 
performance ~ an equation that yields a net positive to the City and County of San Francisco and 
the Public Defender's Office. 



Page 34 



I 






OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

F) Research Unit: 

The Research Unit is located on the second floor and encompasses the Computer Room 
and the Library, as well as two offices for personnel. The physical plant contains five computers, 
three printers, one scanner, a CD-ROM drive and telecommunications equipment. The computers 
are used both by unit personnel and by the office's attorneys and interns. They contain copies of 
the office's entire collection of forms. The Library contains several hundred state and federal law 
practice and case books, a microfiche reader-printer, and a copy machine, as well as a Briefs and 
Documents Bank containing several hundred documents with a computerized indexing system for 
access. Three computers have access to the Westlaw computerized research system and the 
California Public Defenders' Association C.L.A.R.A. system. C.L.A.R.A. and other research 
tools are also available on CD-ROM. 

In fiscal year 1991-1992, Unit personnel: 

* Prepared appeals, writs, motions, memos and other documents in response to over 
219 formal requests. 

* Answered over 1,500 oral requests for information. 

* Secured MCLE (mandatory continuing legal education) course provider status for 
the office. 

* Organized and conducted seminars on new criminal statutes, discovery after 
Proposition 115 and other subjects, for a total of 8 hours of MCLE credits. 

* Continued to prepare and publish the office's newsletter, which contains summaries 
of recent cases and other information of interest. 

* Updated and maintained the Briefs and Documents Bank and the Forms collection. 

* Issued numerous memos on current legal issues. 

* Arranged for computerized research (Westlaw) training and training on word 
processing and computer skills. 



Page 35 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



The burden on the unit and the office's trial deputies has continued to increase this year 
with the passage of Proposition 115, which is still being interpreted by the California Supreme 
Court. Areas such as preliminary hearings, indictments, and prosecutorial discovery have been 
changed almost beyond recognition, and cases that have stood as firm authorities for decades are 
now no longer the law. The passage of this proposition, and Proposition 8 before it, which is still 
not fully interpreted, have made the unit more valuable than ever to the trial deputies in the office. 



Page 36 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 

VII. TRAINING 

Training is an essential part of any respectable Public Defender's Office. It is the means by 
which basic information about the work and the law is conveyed to new attorneys and other staff 
members. The continuous and rapid developments in law and forensics virtually make it 
impossible for the individual practitioner to keep apace by himself or herself. Thus training is 
imperative for the continuing education of the staff. 

As an integral part of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, training takes on three 
different modalities: 



1) On-the-Job Training: This type of training is designed to break the attorneys or other 
staff members into the tasks they will be performing. This process entails instructions, feedback 
and informal evaluations. The trainees are encouraged to utilize the training and resource materials 
available at the office. 



2) In-House Training: The In-House model involves educational sessions provided by the 
office. These sessions cover such areas as recent developments in the law and forensics. The 
office also provides simulated courtroom presentations as part of In-House training. 



3) Out-of-Office Training: This model consists of seminars set up by professional 
associations. The seminars are conducted throughout the state, and some of these associations 
provide scholarships to attending attorneys. 



Page 37 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



In the 91-92 fiscal year, the office provided and/or participated in the following formal 
training sessions: 
Qfficg-Wifl? ggminarg; 
Date Topic 

9/1 9/9 1 Prosecutorial Discovery After Izazaga 

1/1 6/92 Mental Defenses After Saille 

1/23/92 New Laws Update (Criminal Statutes of 1992) 



3/26/92 

4/15/92 

4/30/92 

6/4/92 

6/26/92 



Speaker (s) 
Grace Suarez 
Jeff Brown 



Issues in Toxicology 

Forensic AIDS Services 

Sentencing Alternatives Within County Jail 

Firearms Evidence For Attorneys 

Training Public Defenders 



Bob Berman 
Daro Inouye 
Robert Evans 
Joe Spaeth 
Robin Levine 
Ron Albers 
Grace Suarez 

James Meeker, Ph.D. 

Wolfgang Stuwe 

Kevin Foster 

James Norris 

National Legal Aid 
Defender Association 



Misdemeanor Division Seminars: 

8/1/91 Community Dispute Services 

8/15/91 Misdemeanor Sentencing 

8/22/9 1 The Use of the Intoxilyzer 5000 in D.U.I Cases 

1 1/15/9 1 Intoxilyzer 5000 Demo 

1 2/5/9 1 Pre-trial Diversion 

12/17/91 Viewed Part of C.P.D.A. Videotape of 1 1/16//91 

"Misdemeanor Defense Seminar" 



Karen Moen 
Ron Albers 
James Norris 
James Norris 
Will Leong and staff 
Jeff Adachi 



Page 38 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



12/19/91 Viewed Part of C.P.C.A. Videotape of 1 1/16/91 

"Misdemeanor Defense Seminar" 



Elizabeth Warner- 
Sterkenberg 



1/7/92 Viewed Part of C.P.D. A. Videotape of 1 1/16/91 

"Misdemeanor Defense Seminar" 

1/9/92 Toxicological Aspects of Drunk Driving 

1/16/92 The Supervised Citation Program of the 

San Francisco Sheriff's Dept. 

1/21/92 Viewed Part of C.P.D.A. Videotape of 5/1 1/91 

"Courtroom Evidence Seminar" 

1/28/92 Viewed Part of C.P.D.A. Videotape of 5/1 1/9 1 

"Courtroom Evidence Seminar" 

1/30/92 Contested Diversion Proceedings 

2/21/92 Prosecutorial Discovery in Misdemeanors 

3/10/92 Mental Health Aspects of Misdemeanor Cases 

3/19/92 Misdemeanor Sentencing Part I 

3/24/92 Misdemeanor Sentencing Part II 

3/3 1/92 Sentencing in Driving Under the Influence Cases 



Bill Rafael 

William Giguiere 
AliRiker 

James Hogan 

Hon . B ernardJef f erson 

Grace Suarez 
Grace Suarez 
Ron Albers 
Ron Albers 
Ron Albers 
Ron Albers 



Page 39 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 



Seminars Offered Bv Private Organizations To Which The Office Obtained 
Scholarships: 



7/17 - 7/20/91 

10/19/91 
11/16/91 
12/14/91 

12/14/91 
1/2 - 1/4/92 

3/14 - 3/17/92 



California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) 
Basic Trial Skills Institute, San Diego 

CPDA "Mental Issues and Defenses", San Francisco 

CPDA "Misdemeanor Defense Seminar" , Long Beach 

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice 17th Annual Fall Seminar - 
A Celebration of the Bill of Rights, San Francisco 

CPDA "Drunk Driving Defense Seminar", Manhattan Beach 

CPDA "2nd Annual Advanced Trial Skills Institute", Squaw Creek, 

Olympic Valley 

Hastings College of the Law College of Advocacy 
Criminal Justice Institute, San Francisco 



3/21/92 CPDA "8th Annual Computers for Lawyers Seminar", San Francisco 

5/16/92 CPDA "Defense of Drug Cases Seminar", San Francisco 

6/13/92 CPDA "Drunk Driving Defense Seminar", San Francisco 

Computer Training: 

10/15/92 CD-ROM Training Session Grace Suarez 

3/23/92 Evidentiary Objections Computer Program Self-Taught 

4/10/92 Westlaw Training Westlaw Personnel 



4/24/92 



Westlaw Research Days 



Friday Afternoons at 
Westlaw 's Offices 



Additionally, this office schedules training sessions, and pays the tuition for, staff members to 
attend End User Computing presented by the City and County's Information Services Division 
(ISD) throughout the fiscal year. 

Please Note: Almost all of the criminal law seminars listed above have received Mandatory 
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) and Criminal Law Specialization credit from the State Bar of 
California. 



Page 40